








































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































•4 V ^ 

a ^ • »• ' a 

° AT A 

VI v>> ."O' *> 

. V 


1,0 V*, 

-e^rjir^ * n *■ *,u,\\ XV , * . «. v- «?». " 

C /-i •’'■*€*' * r.) <~U * • cS O *• f\ ^ + 

+ " ’ ‘f ,.. ^. * • - • ’ </ * •.. • / %,♦... 




A & ,'■'«- ”<£ N 

r *, c . 

^ ' 

* ^ cr 



'TvT* a 



£* <p ^Svl\ V\ C S ^ H v > 

«* aKt 5 ^ • -o.r 

* *»o 0 ^ 



A$>* 9 s. 1 * 

% ° ^ 
; «b v* ; ‘ 


V^V V : - 

>• -»a: *<fc >* .‘iSteS*. ^ a / 



<4. -■■’•/ V"." , 

. ^ a? .ri&:% ^ v % ..... 




S A 

t * » ^ > 

.cr o °" ° * *o a^ * •■ • • 

\j • ^ O t 

“ ^ 0> * nu/sss-* i 

O V • 

♦ _ -£• * 

’ .0° V 

A >i% > 


* <* A 

: v-sr 



■' A 'V 
. * '%■ 

0 4° ... 'V”' •''**’ aA <X '■>•** A° 

C • o ^ t ’ ^ ^ ^ .0 0 0 * ® ♦ 


* ® N 0 ■' .A 

*> v V 

** A A. ► 

V A* ♦ 

s • A ^ 

•* A •JV 
‘ A' ^ 

A ° * 




o V 


\0 v^» 

V ^ V) 

° 4 - *•<’* A° ^ 

*o ^ A. 

° ^ A f ^ 

^ aV -?*, u .v/»s\\y. .s" ~»a 



,\ v %. * «'/■•* 

V « r * o < 

V v/ V 

- v^V 

- C rv ^ * 


rV d 1 



%. a 0 ^ -o -.r;.’ o 









** A* 


* <$> ^ 

v • * * Sy 



^•n#. 

\ ‘^-'V V 

o ,0 , >•' ^ 

<• %■ ,V .\ 4 ?ft *,'. 


'•s- ,S 


\P s 


♦ V V 



♦ ^ V c> < 9 V ,*V % V 

<* ^ * > 0 <z> * ^t j#?45W^ <* 




* <- v\ 1 

V*V 


* /-S ^ 

*5 vP, 


* V ^ ■* A 

* 4 ° ... ^*™A* 



• ^ v* 

: W 

• c,^ °Y 

• vs # « <L V c 

K 'O.A- ^ 

t * ■" • ♦ c u A y ^ & 0 " 0 * 

^ .«■ h * %, **..■.•' ^°° ^ °o ‘♦’•T, • 1 

V V * < * ; c\ aV \LVL> ^ ^ * * * °„ C\ 

^ c> <., r A 6 ^ 5 * r A a^ v Ji^®v’ ,A a. > n <$LJ 2 • *P 



° v\ V ^ 


® ^5 ^ ^ ^ 

'\ * ^"- ’ ^ *<►/ * ^ 0< V ^ V/ * " ■ ° ’ 

c. .<y ,»•/'„ > v . > • •» c> .<y > 

- a .VdsV. a> *«#> a* ,\*SfiEv. •#> a 


<a '••** a 0> ^ <\ < '?.** .o^ 

CT c 0 1 ° * ^O A^ . L ' * * . CT c. 0 " 0 * 



4 O 

* 1 V''II\\'^S^'~ ° V- 

e. ' N V 

^ % «> «o°* 


• ■ 

* / % ' 

• y V •. 

. 0 ^ t, . l ’o 



iA OA 4 

. o V 


Y <i+ " 0 4 ? ** 

o *.,,• ^0 V *..o’ ^ 

I ^ , 4 ^ < 5 - .A-V /*. ^ . ft ^ 


<? / T 


°^ o 


\0 v^» 

f ♦ r\ 

^ n ; ^ * * - - o 

<> O N o 

S # ° A 

A*^ 






































GRINNELL LAND. 

/frs'2- 












/ 






































. 


























































GRINKELL LAND. 


Remarks on the English Maps of Arctic Dis¬ 
coveries, in 1850 and 1851, made at the 
Ordinary Meeting of the National Institute , 
Washington, in May, 1852, %^Peter Force. 

The reputation of the American Flag is the 
common property of the nation. Its victory or 
its defeat is felt by every one of us. In time of 
peace or war, its glory or shame (should shame 
ever discolor one of its stripes or diminish the 
lustre of one of its stars) is the glory or the shame 
of the American people. In war it can protect 
and defend itself. In peace it is our duty to 
watch it with a jealous care, and protect it 
against any attempt made by a friendly nation 
to rob it of its honours. 

When the American Exploring Expedition, 
in 1840, discovered the Southern Polar Conti¬ 
nent, (a discovery that had baffled the efforts of 
Europe for a century,) the discovery was repu¬ 
diated by the commander of an English Ex¬ 
pedition, and excluded from English maps. The 
people and the press of this country submitted to 
the injury in silence, leaving it to time to do 
the Discoverer justice. But this forbearance 
has only invited a repetition of the wrong. Eng¬ 
land has now repudiated the American discovery 
in the North in 1850. 


1 


2 

How this has been done it is the object of these 
remarks to show. 

The long absence of the Expedition under 
the command of Captain Franklin, who was sent 
to discover the Northwest Passage to the Pacific 
in 1845, and the unsuccessful efforts made from 
England to ascertain the fate of that Expedition* 
induced Lady Franklin to : appeal to America for 
aid in seeking for her husband and his compan¬ 
ions. Her appeal was responded to by Henry 
Grinnell. He purchased vessels, which, with 
the countenance and aid of the United States 
Government were sent to assist in the Search. 

This munificent act of Mr. Grinnell is with¬ 
out a precedent. It was an undertaking by a 
private citizen of one country to seek out and 
restore to their homes, if possible, the officers and 
crews of the absent ships of another. None of 
Sir John Franklin’s own countrymen came for¬ 
ward to do as much. Not a man was found in 
England, from Prince to Peasant, who was able 
and willing to send at his own expense an expe¬ 
dition to search for the English ships and their 
crews, such as was projected and carried out by 
this great-hearted American. 

The American Searching Vessels were placed 
under the command of an officer of the United 
States Navy who had seen some ice service in the 
Expedition that discovered Wilkes’s Land on the 
Antarctic Continent. 

Without dwelling upon the arctic voyage of 


3 


Lieutenant De Haven, or of his and his com¬ 
panions’ sufferings and providential preservation 
from destruction during the most extraordinary 
ice-drift on record, one fact, highly creditable 
to the skill and perseverance of the officers, and 
the determination and indomitable spirit of the 
seamen of our Navy, may be noticed. It is this : 
The Rescue, the foremost vessel of the American 
Expedition entered Wellington channel in com¬ 
pany with the Assistance, the foremost vessel of 
all the English Expeditions, on the 24th of 
August, 1850; and when, at the close of the sea¬ 
son, it became apparent that no farther progress 
could be made, the American vessels, without the 
aid of steam , were at the farthest point that was 
made by any vessel of the three English Expedi¬ 
tions then engaged in the Search, all of which 
had been assisted by steam on their outward voy¬ 
age, when in, and while crossing, Baffin’s Bay. 

The English Expeditions of Ross, Austin, and 
Penny, made harbors. The Americans were 
afloat the whole of a long arctic winter, at the 
mercy of the winds, the currents, and the ice. 
On the 18th of September De Haven was North 
of Cape Bowden, the most northern point seen 
by Parry, in 1819, and farther North within Lan¬ 
caster Sound than has been attained to this day 
by any vessel of all the English Exploring and 
Searching Expeditions. 

His discoveries began at Cape Bowden, on 
the 17th of September. By the end of the 


month he was at 75° 25' N. Here he saw hith¬ 
erto unknown land to the East and West, and far 
off to the North beyond the land on the maps. 
Of this new discovered land he gave names to 
Maury Channel, Grinnell Land, Mount Frank¬ 
lin, and other places around De Haven’s Bay, 
which names none that came after him had a 
right to alter. He says— 

“ To the Channel which appeared to lead into the open 
sea, over which the cloud of £ frost smoke’ hung as a sign, I 
gave the name of { Maury,’ after the distinguished gentleman 
at the head of our National Observatory, whose theory 
with regard to an open Sea to the North is likely to be re¬ 
alized through this Channel. 

,{ To the large mass of Land visible between N. W. and 
N. N. E. I gave the name of £ Grinnell,’ in honor of the head 
and heart of the man in whose philanthropic mind origina¬ 
ted the idea of this Expedition, and to whose munificence it 
owes its existence. 

££ To a remarkable Peak bearing N. N. E. from us, 
distant about forty miles, was given the name of £ Mount 
Franklin.’ 

“ An Inlet or harbour immediately to the North of Cape 
‘ Bowden * was discovered by Mr. Griffin, in his Land ex¬ 
cursion from Point Innes on the 27th of August, and has 
received the name of ‘ Griffin Inlet.’ 

“ The small Island mentioned before was called ‘ Mur- 
daugh’s Island’ after the acting Master of the £ Advance.* 

“The eastern shore of Wellington Channel appeared to 
run parallel with the western, but it became quite low, and, 
being covered with snow, could not be distinguished with 
certainty, so that its continuity with the high land to the 
North was not ascertained.” 

The exclusion of the discoveries of Captain 
Wilkes in the Antarctic Ocean from the charts of 


5 


Captain Ross, with all the circumstances relating 
to this exclusion, were remembered, but it was 
not supposed that an attempt of a like character 
could be made to set aside the American dis¬ 
coveries in the Arctic Regions; for, that no vessel 
of, and no party from, the English Expeditions 
was, in 1850, at any position from which Grin¬ 
ned Land could be seen, was a fact unquestionably 
established by their own Reports of their pro¬ 
ceedings. 

Yet it has been attempted. In England, on 
their maps, it has been accomplished. There, 
on the authority of the Lords of the Admiralty 
De Haven’s discoveries of 1850 have been set 
aside. The name of cc Grinned ” has, there, been 
erased, to make room for that of Prince ec Albert.” 

In May, 1851, eight months after the dis¬ 
covery by Lieutenant De Haven, the same land 
was seen by Captain Penny and his parties. 
As their observations do not agree with De 
Haven’s, it is proper to inquire how far they 
were qualified to correct him or why theirs 
should be taken in preference to his. 

In answer to questions of the Arctic Commit¬ 
tee, Capt. Penny said—“ The observations for 
longitude were rendered useless in consequence 
of our time pieces not keeping equal rate.” 
cc The longitude was by a dead reckoning, and 
could not have been far out.” cc Being young 
travellers, we ad over estimated our distances, 
and had to reduce them, some nearly eighty 
miles.” 


6 


Being inquired of about a discrepancy in lati¬ 
tudes, Penny answered. “ I can explain that. 
I was deceived myself at the time. It was a low 
shingly isthmus covered with snow, which the 
best surveyor must have taken for ice. Mr. Mc- 
Dougall made his observation when it was cov¬ 
ered with snow, and he was deceived, as I was, 
from a distance.” 

In his answers to other questions it appeared 
that he was in the water in the neighborhood of 
Baillie Hamilton Island from the 17th of June to 
the 20th of July—thirty-three days. In all that 
time he got no farther west than Baring Island, 
about twenty miles. He found a tide of at least 
four knots, but, though near the land all the time, 
could not tell whether the flood came from the 
eastward or westward. He took no soundings ; 
and touched the coast of the mainj land at one 
point only—at Cape Beecher, on the northeast 
side of the channel. 

From this cape, at an elevation of five or six 
hundred feet, he took the exact bearings of Capes 
Sir John Franklin and Lady Franklin, each dis¬ 
tant from him sixty or seventy miles. He not 
only saw both Capes very distinctly at that great 
distance, but he was able to mark, at the same 
time, the coast line, as it now appears on the 
maps, with its projections and indentations, its 
Capes and Bays, on both sides of the channel, 
which was sixty miles wide to the Southwest 
from Cape Beecher and twenty-five miles wide 
in the Northwest at Penny Strait. It must have 


7 


been in this view of Captain Penny from Cape 
Beecher, that “ three hundred and ten miles 
of coast were examined by the boat/ 5 which he 
says was done ; for it does not appear that at any 
other time he was where thirty miles of coast 
could be examined by the boat. We have here 
exhibited in their performances some of the 
qualifications of Capt. Penny and his associates 
for correcting the observations of an American 
officer, an experienced and accomplished seaman, 
thoroughly versed in all the branches of nautical 
science. 

Of the five maps consulted in the examination 
into the curious and progressive discovery of 
Albert Land, including Sir John Barrow’s Monu¬ 
ment, the first is Captain Penny’s “outline chart 
of coast explored by traveling parties from the 
Lady Franklin and Sophia, in search of H. B. S. 
Erebus and Terror.” It was prepared at Cap¬ 
tain Penny’s Winter Quarters, Assistance Bay, 
and delivered to Captain Austin before they left 
the ice, on the 12th of August, 1851. He then 
had no knowledge of De Haven’s presence in the 
North in the fall of 1850, and doubtless believed 
that all he saw there was an original discovery. 
In his desire to make this as large as possible, he 
pressed his coast line as far North as he could, and 
extended it Westward to the utmost limits of 
credence; but, with this exception only, he 
could have had no motive for not representing 
every thing precisely as he found it. As to his 


8 


longitudes and latitudes, it must not be forgotten 
that he says his “ observations for longitude were 
rendered useless,” and in his latitude he admits 
he was deceived “ from a distance.” He gives 
on this track-chart the routes of the several par¬ 
ties, and the coast lines and islands, seen and 
supposed to have been seen by him and the offi¬ 
cers under his command; but he gives no names 
to the land or the water. 

“ Sir John Barrow’s Monument,” at that time, 
had not been discovered. 

The next in order is Penny’s “Outline of Dis¬ 
coveries,” printed in the Illustrated London 
News of September 20, 1851, within two weeks 
after his return to England. It is nearly a copy 
of the preceding, with the addition of names to 
the Capes, Bays, Islands, &,c. Here “ Grinnell 
Land” is first called “ Albert Land,” and here 
“ Sir John Barrow’s Monument” is first named. 
It is placed near 76° 45' North, and 93° 30' 
West. 

A third one is the “ Authorized Chart,” 
which, with Penny’s track chart, was inserted in 
the appendix to the Report of the Arctic Com¬ 
mittee. This chart bears the stamp of the Hy¬ 
drographic Office, and the date of September 
23, 1851. It has “ Albert Land” with the addi¬ 
tion “ explored by Captain Stewart.” The 
date of his exploration, May 1851, is omitted. 
It gives Sir John Barrow’s Monument in 77° 5' 
North, and 95° 30' West, and puts land between 


9 


IVBDougall’s Bay and Victoria Channel; which 
the preceding did not. 

Up to this time it may be said that neither Cap¬ 
tain Penny nor the Hydrographer of the Admi¬ 
ralty had more precise information of the posi¬ 
tion and extent of De Haven’s discovery; in 
1850; than they obtained from the published let¬ 
ters from the American Expedition and the re¬ 
turned whalers, and hence were excusable in 
claiming all seen North of Cape Bowden as 
original English discoveries. 

When the next (the fourth) map was pub¬ 
lished there could be no pretence of a want of 
information; as full accounts of De Haven’s dis¬ 
covery in 1850; had then reached England. On 
this map appeared the first certain public demon¬ 
stration of a determination in England to rob him 
of the credit of the discovery. The man who 
volunteered; or who was selected; to perpetrate 
this discreditable act is one extensively known as 
a publisher of maps and charts, and whose repu¬ 
tation for ability and integrity in their construction 
had not hitherto, as far as is known here, been 
suspected. This map has the following title : 

“ Discoveries in the Arctic Sea, between Baffin Bay and 
Melville Island; showing the coasts explored on the ice, 
by Captain Ommanney and the officers of the expeditions 
under the command of Captain H. Austin, R. N. C. B. 
and Captain W. Penny; also by the Honorable Hudson’s 
Bay Company’s Expedition under the command of Rear 
Admiral Sir John Ross, C. B. in search of Sir John Frank¬ 
lin. 


2 


10 

“ Drawn from official documents by John Arrowsmith, 
10 Soho Square. 

“London. Published October 21st, 1851, by John Ar¬ 
rowsmith, 10 Soho Square.” 

This map, “ drawn from official documents, 
by John Arrowsmith, 10 Soho Square,” it is 
seen, bears the date of “ October 21st, 1851,” 
but there is on it the southern shore of Wollas¬ 
ton Land, which was first explored in May, 1851, 
by Dr. Rae. The letter of Dr. Rae giving an 
account of his exploration and enclosing a tracing 
of the coast, was dated at Kendall River, North¬ 
east of Bear Lake, June 10, 1851, and was com¬ 
municated by the Secretary of the Hudson Bay 
Company to the Secretary of the Admiralty on 
the 10th of November. It was not possible there¬ 
fore for Mr. Arrowsmith to publish this earlier 
than November, some time after certain intelli¬ 
gence of De Haven’s discoveries had been re¬ 
ceived, and it probably was not published when 
the Arctic Committee adjourned on the 17th of 
that month, as no allusion to the pretended dis¬ 
covery by Captain Ommanney was made by the 
Committee or by any of the officers who were 
examined. 

On this map, “ drawn from official documents,” 
Sir John Barrow’s Monument is placed in pre¬ 
cisely 77° N. 96° W. 

Over the coast of Grinnell Land Mr. Arrow- 
smith has placed this inscription : 

“Albert Land. Seen (on the birth day of H. R.K 


11 


Prince Albert ,) from H. M. S. Assistance, 26th August, 
1850.— Capt. Ommanney’s Journal. 

“ Independently seen and explored by Captain Penny 
and his officers.” 

Thus it appears, that, according to Mr. Arrow- 
smith’s map, Captain Ommanney has asserted 
in his journal that he discovered “ Albert Land” 
on the 26th of August, 1850. This assertion 
of Captain Ommanney, if true, would completely 
cut off De Haven’s discovery of the 22d of 
September. But it is not true. Whether the 
statement was made on the authority of Cap¬ 
tain Ommanney, or was invented by Mr. Arrow- 
smith, must be settled by the gentlemen them¬ 
selves. In the inquiry under consideration it is 
of no importance to know which of the two is 
responsible for it. It is here of consequence 
only to ascertain what truth there is in it. 

The name of “ Albert Land” was given to the 
land discovered by De Haven in 1850, and u in¬ 
dependently seen by Captain Penny and his offi¬ 
cers” in 1851. The name had nothing to do with 
Mr. Arrowsmith’s birth-day discovery. cc Albert 
Land” was on the maps published before Om¬ 
manney reached England, up to which time 
neither Austin, nor Penny, nor Stewart—not 
even Ommanney himself, as far as appears in 
the official reports and correspondence, had ever 
heard of a discovery of land in the North on 
the 26th of August, 1850. 

Mr. Arrowsmith’s map is dated October 21, 
1850, one day earlier than the letter of the 


12 


Secretary of the Admiralty to Admiral Bowles, 
informing him of the appointment of the Arctic 
Committee. This Committee met on the 24th 
of October. After a full investigation of the 
journals, reports, and proceedings of all the 
Searching Parties of the expeditions, and the 
examination of the officers of all grades, who 
gave answers to upwards of fifteen hundred 
questions, the Committee adjourned on the 17th 
of November, and made their report on the 20th. 

On the day of the final adjournment of the 
Committee, the last witness examined was Cap¬ 
tain Stewart. Some questions were asked him 
respecting the contents of a letter he received 
from Captain Austin after his return from his 
exploring journey, about the end of June, 1851. 
Captain Stewart said he had received a letter, but 
did not recollect the purport of it. Question 
No. 1502 was then put by the Chairman: 

“ Can you state to the best of your recollec¬ 
tion what it was about ?” 

Captain Stewart’s answer is—“ I think the 
purport of it was congratulating me on my return 
and on having discovered that new land to the 
north” 

This “new land to the North,” for the dis¬ 
covery of which in May, 1851, Captain Stewart 
was congratulated by Captain Austin in the suc¬ 
ceeding month of June, is the “ Albert Land” of 
the English maps. There was no suggestion 
by the Committee nor by any officer examined by 


13 


them, that u Albert Land’ 5 had been discovered 
by any other person than Penny and Stewart, 
or earlier than May, 1851. Captain Omman- 
ney, in his examination before the Committee set 
up no pretence to the discovery of the “ new 
land to the North” on the 26th of August, 1850. 
What he communicated to “ John Arrowsmith, 
10 Soho square,” was a private affair, of which 
we know nothing but what Mr. Arrowsmith 
has been pleased to make public. 

Let us now inquire where Captain Ommanney 
was, on the 26th of August, 1850. 

Commander Forsyth and Mr. Snow both say, 
that on the 25th of August, 1850, the day the 
Prince Albert entered and left Wellington Chan¬ 
nel, the Assistance (Captain Ommanney’s ves¬ 
sel) was working over to Cape Hotham. 

Captain Penny, in his letter to the Admiralty, 
dated 12 April, 1851, says he was off Beechey 
Island on Sunday, the 25th of August, when he 
learned from the American schooner, Rescue, 
that relics of Franklin had been found on Cape 
Riley— 

“ The ‘ Assistance’ was then running to the westward; 
and, anxious to be possessed of every particular, I fol¬ 
lowed her, with the intention of going on board, but I 
had not that opportunity till two P. M. when both vessels 
were made fast to the land ice, two thirds of the distance 
across Wellington Channel, the Assistance being about 
one mile and a half to the westward of us.” 

This shows where he was on the 25th of 
August. Where he was on the 26th, is seen in 
the following extract from Lieutenant De Ha- 


14 


ven>s Report to the Secretary of the Navy, dated 
New-York, 4 October, 1851. 

“On the 26th [of August, 1850] with a light breeze, 
we passed Beechey Island, and run through a narrow 
lead to the North. Immediately above Point Innes the 
ice of Wellington Channel was fixed and unbroken from 
shore to shore, and had every indication of having so re¬ 
mained for at least three years. 

“ Further progress to the North was out of the question. 
To the west, however, along the edge of the fixed ice, a 
lead presented itself, with a freshening wind from S. E. 
We ran into it, but at half way across the Channel our 
head way was arrested by the closing ice. A few miles 
beyond this two of the English vessels (one a steamer) 
[Assistance and Interpid] were dangerously beset. I 
deemed it prudent to return to Poinflnnes, under the lee 
of which the vessels might hold on in security until a fa¬ 
vorable change should take place.” 

Here we have the position of Captain Om- 
manney on the 26th of August, on the authority 
of Lieutenant De Haven. 

The appeal will now be to Captain Omman- 
ney himself. Let him say in his own words 
what his position was, and whether he saw “ Al¬ 
bert Land,” on the 26th of August, 1850. In 
his Report to Captain Austin of 10th September, 
1850, he says— 

“ From the top of Beechey Island [August 23] I had an 
extensive view of Wellington Channel and Cornwallis 
Island ; nothing but a close body of ice could be seen, an 
unbroken field of ice covering an extensive sea to the 
Northward, but no land visible beyond 

“ On the 25th a lead opened across the Strait towards 
Cape Hotham ; I therefore considered it my duty to avail 
myself of this opportunity to carry out your instructions 


15 


and examine a spot where I felt confident a record would 
be left by the Expedition on their progress westward. 
The Intrepid was despatched under steam to execute this 
service, whilst we followed under canvass. 

‘‘ During the day Captain Penny communicated with me, 
and having informed him of my intention, he returned to 
search the bay side of Beechey Island. We kept along 
the solid field of ice extending from Cape Innis to Barlow 
Inlet, which bounded the horizon to the Northward, and 
where no land was visible. 

“ When six miles east of Barlow Inlet, the pack ice closed 
in on the main floe, and stopped my further progress, 
where the Interpid joined us. 

“ In this position we continued beset in Wellington Chan¬ 
nel from the 25th ultimo to the 3d inst., strong south¬ 
easterly winds and thick weather prevailing.” 

These extracts from Ommanney’s Report fur¬ 
nish abundant proof that no discovery was made 
by him on the 26th of August, 1850. They 
show that on that day he was fast in the ice near 
Barlow Inlet on the western shore of Wellington 
Channel, and, that he saw no land to the North¬ 
ward when crossing the Channel on the 25th^ 
nor even from the top of Beechey Island, where 
he was on the 23d, at an elevation of seven or 
eight hundred feet. 

Captain Ommanney himself, then, exposes 
the utter groundlessness of the assertion of Mr. 
Arrowsmith, made on the authority of his own 
journal, that he discovered land to the North on 
Prince Albert’s birth day, in 1850. It is possible 
that an entry, such as Mr. Arrowsmith refers to^ 
may now be found on his journal, but no one who 
reads his letter of the 10th of September can 


16 


believe that such an entry was made there in 
August, 1850, or before his return to England, 
28 September, 1851. 

Mr. Arrowsmith’s was followed by another 
map, emanating from the highest authority in 
England, and is the last in the series, so far, 
showing the origin and progress of the discovery 
of Albert Land and Sir John Barrow’s Monu¬ 
ment. It is entitled— 

“ Discoveries in the Arctic Seas to 1851. 
u London. Published according to act of Par- 
“ liament at the Hydrographical Office of the 
<e Admiralty. April 8, 1852.” 

This was prepared for publication long after 
the Admiralty were in possession of De Haven’s 
Report; for his Report was included in the pa¬ 
pers entitled <c Further Correspondence and 
“ Proceedings connected with the Arctic Expe- 
<( dition ; presented to both Houses of Parliament 
<c by command of Her Majesty,” and printed 
early in February; from which it was copied by 
Lieutenant Osborn into his tc Stray Leaves from 
an Arctic Journal,” published in London, Feb¬ 
ruary 15, 1852. Indeed, the map itself shows 
that the Report was before the Hydrographer 
when it was constructed. 

The Admiralty therefore knew what dis¬ 
coveries De Haven had made in September, 1850. 
They probably feared the fraudulent pretensions 
of Mr. Arrowsmith and Captain Ommanney to 
the discovery of Albert Land, on the 26th of 


17 


August, 1850; the Prince’s birth-day; would be 
detected; and that it could only be made an Eng¬ 
lish discovery by relying entirely on cc the inde¬ 
pendent exploration” of it by Penny and his offi¬ 
cers; in May; 1851 ; and by rejecting and discredit¬ 
ing De Haven’s discovery made eight months 
earlier; that is, by doing precisely what had been 
done before in regard to the discovery of the 
Antarctic Continent by Captain Wilkes. 

The coast line of the Northern Land is placed 
a few miles farther to the North by Stewart than 
by De Haven. Stewart makes Cape Simpkinson 
76° 19'; while De Haven made Mount Franklin 
76° 5'; showing a difference of fourteen miles. 
As there is but one land there extending from 
East to West; and that the land first seen by 
De Haven; he or Stewart must be wrong some 
fourteen miles ; or perhaps neither may have it 
precisely correct; as it is possible from his dis¬ 
tance, and not knowing the height of the land, 
De Haven might not be exact. 

A greater error was committed at another 
point. M‘Dougall carried the water of M‘Dougall 
Bay, in longitude 98° 20' West, to the northward 
of Gfoodsir’s southern coast line of the Queen’s 
Channel, making Cornwallis Island an island. 
This collision of the Explorers was noticed and 
corrected by the Hydrographer, who placed a 
belt of firm land between the two waters, by 
which Goodsir’s connected shore line for Victoria 
Channel was secured, and Bathurst Island and 


3 


18 


Cornwallis Island were made one land ; though 
this latter fact does not appear to have been very 
satisfactorily determined. Goodsir had no in¬ 
struments. His journal at midnight on the 25th 
of May, near the place in question, breaks off 
abruptly in the middle of a sentence, while he 
was on the ice in the middle of Manson Bay, 
which had very much the appearance of a deep 
inlet • and in the morning of the same day, from 
an elevation of two hundred feet, a few miles to 
the Eastward of his terminus, he found a level 
country stretching out to the South a consider¬ 
able distance, and the view in that direction 
bounded by high hills. M‘Dougall was at Neal 
Island, on very near the same meridian, on the 
6th of June, when he observed carefully from 
a hill in the centre of the Island, and saw no land 
North of him round the head of the Bay, nor was 
his view in any direction bounded by high hills. 
This over-lapping of waters and latitudes, and 
other discrepancies of observations, presented no 
difficulty to the Hydrographer. With a bold and 
a strong hand he separated the waters and put 
dry land between them; and, at the same time^ 
made a low isthmus of Dr. Goodsir’s high hills. 

All these and other corrections and alterations 
were adopted by the Admiralty. But they do 
not admit the possibility of an error, by De Ha¬ 
ven or by Stewart, in regard to the exact position 
of the coast line of Grinnell Land. There they 
do not hesitate a moment, but come at once to 


19 


the absurd conclusion that Baillie Hamilton 
Island, with an Eastern front running North and 
South, is “ The Grinnell Land of the U. S. 
Squadron/ 5 which runs East and West; and that 
De Haven's assertion that he saw land where he 
has marked Grinnell Land; is untrue. Indeed 
there was no middle path to take. They had 
either to admit De Haven’s statement to be true 
or to reject it as untrue; for, to charge him with 
committing a blunder of a few miles would be 
an admission of his Discovery; which, apparently, 
it was their determination from the first to deny. 

Though Grinnell Land has no place on the 
Admiralty map, to Mount Franklin, which now 
appeared for the first time on an English map, 
they have assigned quite a conspicuous position. 
They found Grinnell Land moved fourteen miles 
to the North, but instead of placing Mount Frank¬ 
lin on the same parallel with it, they shoved the 
latter round to the Eastward in Longitude 91° 28' 
of their map, and changed its bearing from 
N. N. E. to N. E.; and then, as if to convict 
De Haven of misrepresentation or ignorance, 
they marked on Baillie Hamilton Island, four 
degrees and a half to the Westward, “The 
Grinnell Land of the U. S. Squadron. 55 

By this cunning but unfair and unjustifiable 
device, (for Mount Franklin and Grinnell Land 
are on one and the same coast, north of De Ha¬ 
ven’s Bay,) “Mount Franklin of De Haven, 55 
is placed on the east side of the Bay, as it is 


20 


drawn on their maps, within ten miles of the 
coast between Baring Bay and Point Hogarth, 
in a very flat country, where Captain Stewart 
says when speaking of the place where he buried 
some provisions —“ We buried them and built a 
<c large cairn to mark the place, so that we might 
“ not pass it in returning, the land being so low 
cc and flat that there was nothing whatever to 
“ make one know the place again, without some 
“ mark, our own sledges being the highest thing 
“ in sight for miles and miles, except the hum- 
iC mocks in the offing.” There could, then, be 
no Mount Franklin there. 

Thus, by cutting De Haven’s Discovery into 
two parts, erasing one entirely and placing the 
other fourteen miles to the South of their north¬ 
ern coast line, they endeavor to make it quite 
clear that he did not see Grinnell Land at all, 
and that there can be no Mount Franklin ; and 
therefore all that he says about discovering land 
to the North is nothing more nor less than a 
sheer fabrication. 

Mount Franklin has been a great puzzle to the 
English Hydrographers and map makers. All 
they knew about it before De Haven’s return to 
the United States, was the reference by Dr. 
Kane in a letter, to a remarkable Peak, bearing 
N. N. E. from the ships. They knew from this 
that there was a distinctly marked high land some¬ 
where in the direction indicated by Dr. Kane. 
But this was all they knew. Nothing like it had 


21 


been seen or mentioned by Penny or by Stewart. 
No notice of such a Peak is found on any of the 
Journals of Penny’s parties. But when his 
“ Outline of Discoveries/’ of September 20, was 
prepared, a “ remarkable Peak ” was required 
to make it complete. It would not do to leave 
undiscovered what it was known De Haven had 
seen. So “ Sir John Barrow’s Monument,” with 
two remarkable Peaks, was discovered for the oc¬ 
casion, and very faintly placed in about latitude 
76° 45' N., longitude between 93° and 94° W. 
On the copy examined it is so faintly marked that 
only the words can be seen—nothing of the 
Monument is perceptible. 

It is possible Sir Francis Beaufort thought 
the position first chosen for the Monument was 
too near De Haven’s Mount Franklin, and 
that farther off it would be much safer from a 
suspicion of its surreptitious existence. So he 
altered its location. On the “ authorized chart” 
of September 23, <c Sir John Barrow’s Monu¬ 
ment” is removed to 77° 5' North, 95° 30' West. 
Arrowsmith, October 21, got it a little farther 
West—he changed it to 77° North, 96° West; 
but he does not cite Captain Ommanney’s Jour¬ 
nal as his authority for this change. When the 
cunning device was conceived of cutting off 
Mount Franklin from Grinnell Land, and taking 
it around from the North to the East side of De- 
Haven Bay, by the Admiralty, April 8, 1852, it 
appeared to be entirely out of the way, so the 


22 


Hydrographer carried the Monument back to 
77° 5' North, 95° 30' West. 

Thus it has been floating about, from Septem¬ 
ber to April, like a log drifted by the tides. 
Where it may be placed on the next map 
“ drawn from official documents,” no one on 
this side the Atlantic can imagine. To the 
question—“ Who has seen Sir John Barrow’s 
Monument, and what is its true position ?” there 
is no answer. Penny did not see it. Stewart did 
not see it. Sutherland did not see it. None of 
the explorers saw it. There was no authority 
for placing it any where. cc Sir John Barrow’s 
Monument” is a mere fiction, thought indispensa¬ 
ble, perhaps, in sustaining the attempt to appro¬ 
priate to the English explorers of 1851, the 
American discoveries in 1850. 

These are some of the fruits of an undertaking 
prompted by kindness and urged on by humanity. 
It was carried out with ability, energy, and per¬ 
severance. What is given in return for this? 

What are England’s thanks to Lieutenant De 
Haven ? His discoveries are taken from him, his 
fair fame is assailed, and, through him, the honor 
of the flag he sailed under is contemned. What 
are England’s thanks to Mr. Grinnell ? His name 
has been rudely and scornfully ejected from a 
land where, according to the laws and usages of 
all civilized nations, it had a right to remain 
forever; they have put in its place the name of 
another but not a nobler man. 


23 


Such are the thanks and the greetings of Eng¬ 
land to America, for sending solicited aid to 
assist in ascertaining the fate of her long absent 
subjects. 

Nevertheless, should another call be made for a 
similar mission, may there then be a Grinnell, and 
a De Haven, and an administration in these Uni¬ 
ted States, ready to answer it, and prompt to act 
upon it. But the self-respect of the people and 
government of America should never again per¬ 
mit their Flag to be associated on such a service, 
with one that may, from whatever motive, be 
unwilling to do it justice. No—rather in all fu¬ 
ture time, when sent forth in the cause of 
humanity or of science, wherever duty may call 
it, there let that Flag be seen, floating proudly 
—but alone. 


R. A. Waters, Print., Washington. 























/ ^ f A 


Uv £Art/* v 


'jVT < 

jTt v- ?. S. 


STi ~ <3 


' SUPPLEMENT 


“GRINNELL LAND ” 

/S-^J 

ROBERT A. WATERS, Print., Washington, D. C. 


' (J~ (hr 


A 
































# 



























4 









































































•Y 





















* 





























* 


* 








* 




















» 





A 





























































SUPPLEMENT. 


Supplement to Grinnell Land. Read at the 

Ordinary Meeting of foe JYational Institute , July , 

1853. By Peter Force. 

In the “ Remarks 55 on certain English Maps here¬ 
tofore presented, the unfair attempt made in England 
to impose upon the world by the exclusion of the 
American Discovery in 1850; from their Maps, and 
the substitution in place of it of their own explora¬ 
tions in 1851; was met; it was believed; at every 
point; and fully exposed; by authorities from their 
own Reports and Official Papers. 

Copies of the “ Remarks 55 were sent to persons 
in England who, it was supposed would expose its 
errors if any were detected, or, if none were dis¬ 
covered, would admit that it told the plain truth, 
and acknowledge promptly and with good feeling, 
the wrong on their side. It appears, however, that 
though they detected no errors, none had the can¬ 
dor to admit that the truth had been fairly stated. 
The Admiralty, the Hydrographer, Captain Om- 
manney, Mr. Arrowsmith, Captain Penny, &,c., were 
all silent. 

The cause of their silence is well understood. 
They could produce no evidence of a discovery of 
“Albert 55 land in 1850, nor name one who claimed 
1 


r/V 


2 


for himself such a discovery. This, in addition to an 
overwhelming consciousness of their inability to set 
aside the Discovery of Grinnell Land, made them 
silent. But while silent as to the American Dis¬ 
covery in 1850, they have endeavored to build up an 
English discovery at an earlier date in that year. 

When the Remarks were submitted, “ John Ar- 
rowsmith, 10 Soho Square/ 5 alone had claimed an 
English discovery on the 26th of August, 1850. 
This claim appeared exclusively on his map, on the 
alleged authority of Captain Ommanney’s Journal—- 
an authority that was proved to be entirely fabulous 
by Captain Ommanney’s official Report. 

The maps were printed and scattered abroad in 
the hope, there can be no doubt, that the “Albert” 
land of the Admiralty, and of Arrowsmith and Om- 
inanney, would be adopted without question, and 
become fixed on the maps in Europe, before the de¬ 
ception could be exposed there. 

In the meantime English books began to give an 
indirect support to the maps. The writers of these 
did not, in so many words, deny that De Haven dis¬ 
covered Grinnell Land; but they did the same 
thing, indirectly but effectually, wherever English 
books influence or control public opinion. They did 
it by a suppression of the truth. They in general 
make no allusion to De Haven’s being in Welling¬ 
ton Channel at all; but they all suppress the fact 
that on the 22d of September, 1850, he was up the 
Channel, on its western side, as high as 75° 25' 


3 


North. The retention of “Albert” land on the Eng¬ 
lish maps, depends upon the successful suppression 
of this fact. If they succeed in their efforts to sup¬ 
press it, “'Albert” land will remain an undisturbed 
English discovery where the Admiralty have placed 
it, and Grinnell Land will be expunged and for¬ 
gotten. 

Instances of the suppression here charged, which 
is England’s forlorn hope on this question, can easily 
be brought forward. 

Dr. Sutherland in his Journal of Captain Penny’s 
Expedition, says— 

“ It appeared that the American ships got beset in Barrow 
Strait on the very evening that they passed Assistance Bay, 
in which state they continued throughout the winter, drifting 
to the Eastward and Southward , until they were set at 
liberty by the swell of the Atlantic, in Latitude 65° or 66°, 
in the beginning of June.” 

Kennedy, in his short Narrative of the Second 
Voyage of the Prince Albert, has a very brief notice 
of De Haven’s drift— 

“ On the 13th (August, 1851,) as we had expected, we fell 
in with the American Squadron, at that time all well and in 
high spirits, after their extraordinary and unparalleled drift 
of eight months in the heart of the pack, through Lancaster 
Sound and Baffin’s Bay.” 

In Seemann’s Narrative of the Voyage of the 
Herald, we find— 

“ On the 10th of September, (1850,) the American ves¬ 
sels, with the entire Searching Squadron, were concentrated 
about eight miles South of Griffith’s Island, the furthest 
westing gained by the former. While the English vessels 
now took up their winter quarters, the American commander, 
though he was provisioned for thre^ears, decided on pro¬ 
ceeding homewards. Ilis vessels, however, became imbedded 
in the pock ice, opposite Wellington Channel , and were help- 


/ 


4 


lessly drifting during the ensuing winter, through Lancaster 
Sound , and along Baffin's Bag, beyond Cape Walsingham, 
where, after much exposure, trial and danger, they were at 
last liberated on the 10th of June, 1851.” 

Sutherland, and Kennedy; and Seemann all agree. 
They each make De Haven drift to the Eastward and 
Southward , through Lancaster Sound and Baffin’s 
Bay. They all suppress his drift to the Northward. 
Their exact agreement that the American vessels did 
not drift to the North, but only to the East and 
South, cannot be a mere extraordinary coincidence— 
it is the evidence of a concert of action for the ac¬ 
complishment of an unworthy purpose; for not one 
of the persons named can take refuge under a plea 
of ignorance of De Haven’s Northern drift, or of his 
position on the 22d of September, 1850. 

These silently excluded De Haven from Welling¬ 
ton Channel, to cut him off from the Discovery of 
Grinnell Land. This may be considered their share 
in the undeclared war on his reputation. It was 
merely undermining, leaving to others to make the 
more open assault by charging him with falsehood. 

Lt. Markham, in his “ Franklin’s Footsteps,” and 
the London Quarterly Review for April, 1853, both 
follow more closely in the wake of the Admiralty, 
and permit De Haven to make his way up Welling¬ 
ton Channel so far North as to get a sight of Baillie 
Hamilton Island, but of nothing beyond it. Lieu¬ 
tenant Markham says— 

44 The American vessels, at the approach of winter, at¬ 
tempted to return hoiffe. On the 13th of September they 
advanced as far as Cape Hotham, but were beset at the en- 


5 


trance of Wellington Channel soon afterwards. On the 18th 
they were drifted up the Channel, north of Cape Bowden. 
They drifted slowly to the N. N. W. until the 22d, when 
they observed a small Island separated from Cornwallis by 
a channel about three miles wide (Murdaugh Island). To a 
channel leading north-west was given the name of Maury 
Channel. The Island (called by Penny Bail-lie Hamilton) to 
the N. N. W. was named Grinnell Land.” 

Markham could know nothing of what the Ameri¬ 
cans saw, but from the Report and Journals of De 
Haven and his officers; and yet, solely on the au¬ 
thority of the Admiralty Chart, he says their state¬ 
ments are untrue. He says distinctly that Penny’s 
Baillie Hamilton Island is De Haven’s Grinnell Land, 
Of this gentleman, who says he was u one of the 
youngest” of Austin’s Expedition, it may be said, 
that his modesty is of a piece with his years. 

The Reviewer, who can scarcely put in the same 
plea, of extreme youth, in his justification, takes the 
same ground— 

“ The American Expedition made a most singular sweep, 
Lieut. De Haven parted company with the other searching 
vessels on the 13th of September, off Griffith's Island. But 
the frost had already set in, and snow having fallen, the sea 
was covered with a tenacious coating through which it was 
impossible for the vessels to force their way. As the Ice 
about them thickened they became entirely at the mercy of 
the winds and the currents. 

“ To the astonishment of all on board, they were carried 
directly up Wellington Channel. Here drifting about as the 
wind varied, they came on the 22d of September, in sight of 
that Island which in our Charts is named Baillie Hamilton.” 

De Haven said, (and so his officers say,) that 
when at 75° 25' North, he saw land from that posi¬ 
tion, extending from N. W. to Nt N. E. This Lieu¬ 
tenant Markham and the Reviewer deny. They say 


6 


the farthest North land he saw, was in latitude 75° 44', 
that is, Cape Washington, the South Eastern Point of 
Hamilton Island. Their only authority for this is the 
false entry on Hamilton Island; in the Admiralty 
Chart of April 8; 1852. According to that Chart; 
De Haven came “ in sight of that Island;” when he 
reached Cape Bowden; that is to say there was no 
land marked between that Cape and the Southern 
shore of Hamilton Island to prevent its being seen; 
and the distance being less than that from Cape 
Beecher to Cape Lady Franklin; Penny could have 
seen it very easily; in a case of emergency; but even 
he; with the greatest exertions of his far-seeing fac¬ 
ulties; could not see the Southern shore of Hamil¬ 
ton Island; from the hill-top at his Point Decision. 
Nor could De Haven see it from his ship. De Haven 
never saw Hamilton Island. 

Besides these instances of intentional suppression 
of a well known and well established truth; to shove 
the American Flag aside ; that their own might ap¬ 
pear to be in front; there is one of unfairness that is 
referred to with reluctance; but which cannot be per¬ 
mitted to pass without some notice. From his rep¬ 
utation for straight forward honesty and manliness 
of character; as understood in America; something 
better was looked for from the gentleman now al¬ 
luded to—the President of the Royal Geographical 
Society of London. It was believed that from a re¬ 
gard for his own fair fame; and for the fair fame o§ 
his colleagues as a' body, as well as for the trust¬ 
worthiness of their labors, that if he referred to the 


7 


American Expedition at all, he would speak the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 
His position made this his duty. How did he per¬ 
form this duty ? 

At a meeting of the London Royal Geographical 
Society, on the 8th of November last, which “ was 
attended by many Arctic Authorities, 55 allusion was 
made to the American Arctic Expedition, by the 
President of the Society, Sir Roderick Murchison. 
In his Address, he said— 

“ In alluding to the efforts which have been made by indi¬ 
viduals in this humane cause, I need scarcely remind you of 
the Search after Franklin, which was executed through the 
munificence of a single citizen of the United States, Mr. 
Grinncll, who in consequence was elected by your acclama¬ 
tion, an honorary member of this Society—nor to the able 
manner in which Captain Do Haven, of the American Navy, 
carried out the project, and w T as among the foremost in 
discovering new lands.” 

Without stopping to inquire why, at so late a day, 
in the Geographical Society, it was considered expe¬ 
dient to class De Haven “ among the foremost in 
discovering new lands, 55 in connection with the elec¬ 
tion of Mr. Grinnell, “by acclamation, 55 an honorary 
member of the Society, it may, with safety, be as¬ 
sumed, that it is intended to be understood as the 
acknowledgment, in full, by England to the United 
States. That Mr. Grinnell is to receive this vote 
“ by acclamation, 55 as an equivalent for the expul¬ 
sion of his name from the Land discovered by De 
Haven, in 1850—that De Haven, as a discoverer, is 
to be satisfied with being classed “ among 55 those 
who first saw in 1851, what he had discovered in 


8 


5850; and.that by such compliments America will 
be coaxed, not only into a relinquishment of the 
Discovery of Grinnell Land, but also into an admis¬ 
sion of the prior discovery of “Albert” land. 

If these were the expectations of Sir Roderick, he 
should be undeceived. He should understand that 
he estimates at much too high a rate the value of 
compliments, even when voted “ by acclamation,” 
by the distinguished Society over which he presided; 
and that such a vote, if accompanied by a denial of 
De Haven’s Discovery, or a refusal to admit it, 
would be worthless to Mr. Grinnell, and insulting to 
Lieutenant De Haven, and to his country. 

Having cleared away some of the rubbish of a 
year’s accumulation, it is proposed to refer again to 
the Discovery of Grinnell Land. De Haven’s 
account of it has been given heretofore. The state¬ 
ments of his officers will be given now, not as evi¬ 
dence to sustain him, for that is altogether unneces¬ 
sary, but for the purpose of presenting in contrast 
the averments of the witnesses of an actual Discov¬ 
ery, with the representations of persons who ap¬ 
peared as witnesses to support a discovery which 
nobody claims to have made, and which they knew 
was never made. 

Dr. Kane, in his Journal, is very full and very 
dear, and very particular, as to the Discovery— 

“September 21, 1850. We have drifted still more to the 
Northward and Eastward. A reliable observation gave us 
Lat. 75° 20' 38". Apparently we are not more than seven 


miles from the shore, which is still of the characteristic 
limestone of the lower channel. Terraces of shingle are 
rising one above another in regular succession. They follow 
the curve-like sweep of the indentations. Estimated by eye, 
the height of the uppermost is about forty feet above the 
water line; but I was of course unable at that distance to 
compare the levels of the successive ledges with those ob¬ 
served between Capes Spencer and Innes on the opposite 
side. 

“About tea-time, we saw a set of hill-tops to the North by 
West, apparently of the same configuration with the hills 
around us. The coast of Cornwallis Island now receded to 
the Westward, and an intermediate space, either of water or 
of very low beach, separates it from the new land to the 
North and East of us. Whether this be a cape from a 
Northern Terra Incognita, or a new bend of the opposite 
shores of North Devon, I am not prepared to say. 

“We took sextant bearings. From this date we may 
claim the discovery of that land, which we were able after¬ 
wards to define satisfactorily. 4 Grinnell Land’, as it was 
afterwards named by our Commander, was thus discovered 
nearly eight months before it was delineated and named by 
Captain Penny in May, 1851. 

“September 22d .—This day of rest (Sunday), which opened 
with clear cold serenity, gave us an opportunity of seeing the 
unvisited shores of Wellington Channel. Our latitude by arti¬ 
ficial horizon was now 75° 25', or about sixty miles North of 
Cape Hotham. Cape Bowden on the eastern side had disap¬ 
peared, and on the West a dark projecting cape from which 
we took our sextant angles, was seen bearing to the West of 
South. To the Northward and Westward low land was 
seen having the appearance of an island, although it may 
have been connected with the shore by an unseen strip. Its 
Eastern termination was more elevated. 

“ The bend of the Western shore, was now clearly to the 
Westward. It was rolling with the terraced shingle beaches 
before observed, and ended or apparently ended, abruptly. 

44 After and beyond these to the North, without visible 
land intervening, were the mountain tops which terminated 
our view. These were two in number, one higher than the 
other and bearing . A third summit, more dis¬ 

tant than the others, was seen by me from the mast-head, but 

2 


10 


the bases of all these as is often the case with distant moun¬ 
tains could not be traced to the horizon. 

“ Without the aid of a known height, and in an atmos¬ 
phere so deceptive, I could not venture to give their distance 
in miles. Lieut. De Haven estimated the middle peak the 
nearest, and most conspicuous, at about fifty miles. It bore 
North North East.” 

Here Dr. Kane is direct and positive. He is not 
compelled to resort to u a division of opinions,” nor a 
“ first idea,” nor an u if.” He is plain and outright. 
He says— 

“ Grinnell Land, as it was afterwards named by our 
Commander, was thus discovered nearly eight months before 
it was delineated and named by Captain Penny in May, 
1851.” 

Lieutenant Griffin, Commander of the Rescue, in 
his Narrative of De Haven’s Voyage, is as clear and 
positive as De Haven and Kane, as to the Dis¬ 
covery :— 

“ A succession of southerly gales occurring, we were driven, 
with all the ice in sight, up Wellington Channel, until we 
reached the latitude 75° 25'. From that position much new 
land was seen. A range of high mountains very justly re¬ 
ceived the name of Grinnell. A channel leading to the 
N. W. was named after the distinguished gentleman at the 
head of the National Observatory, Mr. Maury. Capes and 
Islets never before seen, unless by the missing navigators, 
were named. By gazing on that which was entirely new to 
man, the -spirit of enterprise became animated—we felt dis¬ 
posed even then to load the sledge, and toil slowly in the 
direction of the mountain range. 

“ Captain Penny, the following spring, without knowledge 
of our having been ahead of him, gave English names to the 
above Land, calling Grinnell Land, Albert Land; Maury’e 
Channel, Victoria Channel, &c. The mistake, as soon as it is 
explained, I suppose will be corrected on the English Charts.” 

Lieutenant Griffin erred in his supposition. The 
“ mistake” was sufficiently explained before Penny's, 


11 


or Arrowsmith’s, or any other chart of the Arctic 
Discoveries in 1850, was published. The Lords of 
the Admiralty received officially an explanation of 
the “ mistake, 55 more than two months prior to the 
date of the Admiralty chart, of April 8, 1852. Their 
cc mistake 55 has not yet been corrected. They still 
adhere to the name of “Albert 55 land. 

Under what pretence of right do they do this ? 

The American Discovery is recorded in the Report 
of De Haven, the Journal of Kane, the Narrative 
of Griffin, and the logs of the ships. This is the 
American evidence. 

As to the pretended English discovery of the 26th 
of August, it is not mentioned in any official Report, 
nor is it alluded to anywhere before the publication 
of Arrowsmith 5 s Map. No one besides Arrowsmith 
has claimed a discovery up Wellington Channel, in 
1850. This claim was disposed of before it was 
made; and no one has since presented a single fact, 
or produced a single voucher, in support of a dis¬ 
covery there, on Prince Albert’s birth-day, in that 
year. Penny and Sutherland, it is true, have each 
alluded to a discovery as if one had been made on that 
day; but both take particular care to avoid the res¬ 
ponsibility of asserting that one was made, or that 
they believe one was made, on the 26th of August, 
1850. This is the English evidence, and on this evi¬ 
dence “ Albert 55 land is retained on the English maps. 

Dr. Sutherland’s Journal of Captain Penny’s Ex¬ 
pedition in search of Sir John Franklin, was pub- 


12 


lished in August, 1852. There had been full time, 
from the publication of Arrowsmith’s Map, to en¬ 
lighten Penny and Sutherland on the subject ot 
Arrowsmith and Ommanney’s discovery. Much 
might have been done in nine months—perhaps 
much was done. 

A Travelling Report of Captain Penny’s Journey 
to the North, in 1851, is given in the eighteenth 
chapter of Sutherland’s Journal. From this Report 
Captain Penny appears to have been the first of the 
English Explorers who obtained a view of Grinneli 
Land. 

On Monday, May 12, 1851, at half past ten P. M., 
Penny first saw the north land, from Cape Graham. 
• This cape is the Point Decision of the English Maps. 
Here, Penny says— 

“At this point I ascended a hill about four hundred feet 
high, from which I could see land stretching from the oppo¬ 
site side of the Channel Northward to a point bearing about 
N. E., and appeared to be continued North Westward, as if 
it should join the land on which I stood, which stretched 
away about N. W. 

“There was, however, a space to the Eastward, in which 
the land was lost sight of. Here, as well as between the 
point N. E. and N. W. there might be openings out of the 
newly discovered Sea. 

“I came to the resolution of proceeding Northwards , 
leaving instructions for Messrs. Marshall and Goodsir, to 
continue along the line of coast leading to Northwestward.” 

He started on the Ice, to cross this u newly dis¬ 
covered sea,” (De Haven Bay,) at fiveP. M., of the 
14th. His course, he says wasN. W. by N. At mid¬ 
night he encamped, having made from twenty-five to 
thirty miles. From this encampment he discovered 


13 


Hamilton Island, bearing about N. W. and distant 
from him at least twenty miles. At half past one, P. 
M., on the 15th, he made for the Island, which he 
reached at seven P. M., of the same day. 

He was at Point Surprise, the Northeastern point 
of Hamilton Island, on the 16th. “This Point is a 
very low one, and there was immensely pressed up 
ice upon it.” He says, from this point— 

“ To the North and North East, the land could be seen 
very bold, at a distance of about twenty miles, and its deep 
Bays could be distinguished very clearly. 

“ As the first idea of there being land in this direction, 
occurred on the 26th of August, 1850, on board H. M. S. 
Assistance, and also on board the Sophia, our discovery is 
doubly entitled to be named after H. R. H. Prince Albert.” 

Penny here claims the discovery for himself. By 
“ our discovery” he means—“ discovered by me, on 
the 12th of May, 1851, at half-past tenP. M., and not 
by Captain Ommanney on the 26th of August, 1850.” 
Why, then, was it doubly entitled to be named after 
H. R. H. Prince Albert ? It was not because Cap¬ 
tain Ommanney or any one else saw land in that direc¬ 
tion on the 26th of August, 1850, but because the 
“first idea ” of there being land in that direction, 
occurred on that day on board the Assistance and 
the Sophia. 

But Penny does not # admit any actual discovery of 
“Albert” land earlier than the 12th of May, 1851. 
He concedes to the Assistance and the Sophia no 
more than the “first idea,” (whatever that may be 
worth,) on the 26th of August, 1850 ; and this he 
concedes not to Captain Ommanney, but to the two 


14 


ships, which may apply to any or to all on board both, 
with the exception of Captain Ommanney, to whom, 
after his disclaimer, it could not be applied. 

This is all that Captain Penny has to say on the 
discovery of “Albert” land. He makes no allusion to 
De Haven’s Discovery the preceding year, nor to the 
fact that the American ships were up the Channel 
to 75° 25' North, or were in the Channel at all, after 
the 10th of September,4n 1850. He wished himself 
to be named as the discoverer, in 1851. But this was 
not permitted. It had been determined in a quarter 
too powerful for him to resist, that “ Albert” land 
should be discovered in August, 1850, so as to an¬ 
ticipate De Haven. He knew this was not true, 
and saw it threw him in the back ground ; yet he was 
obliged to submit to it. But he was careful to show 
there could be no truth in the August discovery, 
thereby leaving his own pretensions free from em¬ 
barrassment, if the American Discovery could be set 
aside, in the accomplishment of which he was very 
willing to assist. 

What did Dr. Sutherland do ? He was laboring 
in the same cause, and like Captain Ommanney, he 
kept a Journal in which he noted on each day, what 
he heard, and what he saw* of what occurred on 
that day; but/ unlike Captain Ommanney, he has 
published his Journal. 

The day selected for making Captain Ommanney’s 
discovery for Mr. Arrowsmith’s Map (the Prince’s 
birth day) was a happy thought; and but for the inter- 


15 


vention of a few difficulties, which most men would 
have found insurmountable, was a very judicious 
selection. These difficulties were— 

1st. On that day Captain Ommanney was distant 
some ninety geographical miles from the land to be 
discovered. 

2d. At that distance? tt could not have been seen 
under the most favorable circumstances with a clear 
sky. 

3d. During the day ie the sky was overcast with a 
dense misty haze,” 

4th. Not one on board any of the English vessels 
in Wellington Channel, on the 26th of August, 1850, 
has said that he made any discovery there himself, 
or heard that one had been made on that day, or on 
any other day in 1850. 

Well aware of the existence and the force of these 
and other difficulties, Dr. Sutherland saw how neces¬ 
sary it was to select, in the first place, another day 
to make the discovery. Ommanney crossed the 
Channel on the 25th of August, and after that day 
Sutherland could set up no pretence of even a possi¬ 
bility of his seeing land in the north. The nearest 
approach, then, to his making the discovery on the 
26th of August, was to make it on the 25th. This 
was one day too soon, but there was no help for it. 

In his Journal, on the 25th of August, 1850, he 
says— 

“ At two o’clock in the evening, Mr. Penny went on board 
H. M. S. 4 Assistance’ which by that time was closely be¬ 
set ; her Tender [the Intrepid] being beset six or eight miles 
further on towards Barlow Inlet.” 


16 


After mentioning the return of Captain Penny to 
the Lady Franklin, and the arrangements between the 
officers of the two vessels for continuing the search, 
he adds— 

“ The officers of the ‘Assistance’ and of the 4 Intrepid* 
were divided in their opinions, with respect to the continua¬ 
tion of Land across the top of the Channel. Some of them 
said they had seen it, while ofhSrs maintained with equal 
positiveness, that what had been seen was not land, but open 
water. Each had his abettors in our expedition,—Mr. Man- 
son with the former, and Mr. Stewart with the latter. 

“ However, no one, as far as I knew at the time, could say 
with any degree of certainty, that there was either the one 
or the other, and bring forward proofs of the truth of his 
assertion.” 

This, it should be remembered, Dr. Sutherland 
says is what occurred on the twenty-fifth of August, 
1850; and out of this has been fabricated his dis¬ 
covery of Captain Ommanney’s discovery of Albert 
Land, on the Prince’s birth day, the twenty-sixth of 
August, 1850. 

So much of it as relates to what the unnamed 
“ some of them ” said about seeing land in the North, 
from the Assistance, on the 25th of August, is 
answered by Captain Ommanney, in his letter of 
September 10, 1850. Speaking of the same 25th of 
August, he says— 

“ During the day Captain Penny communicated with me, 
and having informed him of my intention, he returned to 
search the Bay side of Beechey Island. We kept along the 
solid field of Ice extending from Cape Innes to Barlow Inlet, 
which bounded the horizon to the Northward, and where no 
land was visible.” 

There was neither land nor water seen to the 
Northward. It was all Ice. In addition to this un- 


17 


qualified and uncontradicted assertion of Captain 
Ommanney, and the emphatic silence of Lieut. Mark¬ 
ham, there is the evidence of Sutherland’s Meteorolo¬ 
gical Register, that no land twenty miles distant could 
be seen. In his Register for that day, (August 25, 
1850 ,) the remark is, “A. M. cloudy, squally, over¬ 
cast; P. M. misty, overcast, snow.” With such an 
atmosphere, to see land or water at any considerable 
distance, was impossible. 

It is very probable “ the officers of the Assistance 
and of the Intrepid were divided in their opinions 
respecting the continuation of land across the top of 
the Channel,” as different opinions on that very point 
had, like Penny’s “first idea,” been entertained for 
more than thirty years—that is, ev£r since the dis¬ 
covery of the channel by Parry in 1819. But, as no 
land “ across the top of the Channel,” could have 
been seen by any of them, on the 25th of August, 
1850, it is not probable that “ some of them said 
they had seen it.” 

Besides these 66 divided opinions” and what “ some 
of them said” on the 25th of August, Sutherland 
appears to know nothing. He actually knew” nothing 
of any discovery of land at the top of the Channel 
on the next day, the 26th of August, 1850. In his 
printed Journal, the 26th of August occupies nearly 
seven pages, but not one word is found there about any 
other discovery than Franklin’s winter quarters; the 
seeing of land to the North is not even mentioned, nor 
is it again alluded to until the 26th of May in the 
following year, after an interval of nine months. 

3 


18 


Dr. Sutherland was attached to a party sent by 
Captain Penny, under the command of Captain 
Stewart, to explore the eastern shore of Wellington 
Channel. The party started to cross the Ice of the 
Channel on the 9th of May, 1851 ; they encamped 
about four miles south of Point Hogarth, at noon, on 
the 24th of May. 

Sutherland then says— 

“ On the two following days we were crossing Prince Al¬ 
fred Bay, and after a few hours’ march on the 26th, we en¬ 
camped within five miles of land, stretching to the westward 
in latitude 76° 25'. The coast does not present a straight 
line, the deflections occasionally vary in latitude from 5' to 7'. 

“ The newly discovered Land was visited and taken pos¬ 
session of, but it is doubtful to w T hom the honor of naming it 
belongs, if it be the same Land seen by Captain Ommanney 
of H. M. S. Assistance, and Mr. Manson, mate of the Sophia, 
on the 26th of August, 1850. 

“ This matters little, so long as it bears the illustrious 
name of His Royal Highness Prince Albert, "with which Cap¬ 
tain Ommanney honored his discovery. 

“ If the expedition under the command of Mr. Penny can¬ 
not claim the privilege of naming it , it can that of exploring 
it, and, so far as we know, of first landing upon it.” 

Dr. Sutherland, who might consider it great in¬ 
justice to charge him with intentional deception, can¬ 
not object to the somewhat milder charge that he in¬ 
tended to mislead. He was in Wellington Channel 
on the 26th of August, 1850, on the eastern side ; 
Ommanney was there on the same day on its west¬ 
ern side. He knew Ommanney made no discovery 
on that day. There could be no doubt in his mind 
on the subject. He knew, as far as Ommanney was 
concerned, there was no discovery on that day, of 
any land. And while he avoids a direct assertion 


19 


that Ommanney made a discovery, he insinuates it. 
“ ^ ^ be the same land seen by Captain Omman¬ 
ney/ 5 (c 1 his matters little, so long as it bears the name 
of His Royal Highness, Prince Albert, with which 
Captain Ommanney honored his discovery. 55 
r The “if” will not save Dr. Sutherland. The 
charge against him of intending to mislead stands 
good. He knew Ommanney discovered no new land 
in 1850, and could not honor a discovery made by 
him, in that year, with the name of Prince Albert. 

But after all, Sutherland could not be induced, in 
the face of his Journal and Meteorological Register, to 
recognise and endorse the discovery made in Om- 
manney’s name. He would not say “ Captain 
Ommanney discovered Albert Land on the 26th of 
August, 1850/’ though he affects to do it, by a very 
awkward and transparent innuendo. Like Penny he 
insinuates, but leaves the responsibility of asserting 
such a discovery with Captain Ommanney and Mr. 
Arrowsmith. In their hands it was at the beginning 
a discredited and discreditable affair. And it so re¬ 
mains. All that Sutherland would venture to say, 
amounts to no more than this. On the 25th of 
August, 1850, the discovery was merely a division 
of opinion between the officers of the Assistance and 
the Intrepid, on the long controverted question, 
whether there was open water or a continuation of 
land in the North up Wellington Channel. 

On the 26th of May, 1851, every thing was changed. 
It was no longer a difference of opinion between the 
officers of the Assistance and Intrepid. “ The offi- 


20 


cers” of these vessels now had nothing to do with the 
matter, nor had their “ abettors/’ Mr. Manson and 
Mr. Stewart. Captain Ommanney and Mr. Manson, 
the first not named and the other only an abettor 
in 1850, were used in their stead, as seers of the “If” 
land. 

This is Dr. Sutherland’s history of Captain Om- 
manney’s discovery of “Albert” land. 

This completes what Penny and Sutherland have 
to say on the birthday discovery. Penny’s unlocated 
“ Sir John Barrow’s Monument,” now requires a 
brief additional notice. 

Previous to the appearance of Sutherland’s vol¬ 
umes no certain position had been assigned to this 
Monument; and his book, so far from finding for it 
a fixed point on the earth’s surface, leaves the site 
for it as much at large and uncertain as before. 

The time taken to prepare Penny’s Travelling Re¬ 
port for publication, was certainly sufficient for the 
selection of a suitable and permanent location for the 
Monument, were such a thing possible. But this 
was found to be impossible. None of the parties 
sent out by Penny had noticed the “snow-clad 
mountains often enveloped in the clouds,” or even 
the rugged hills that were seen from Point Surprise. 
Simpson did not see them from Cape Simpkinson or 
Cape Beecher; nor Sutherland from Point Hogarth ; 
nor Goodsir or Marshall from Cape Austin. Penny 
was the sole discoverer; and he, in his anxiety to 
make sure of one, discovered, according to what 


21 


purports to be his own account, two distinct Monu¬ 
ments, each, in form, unlike the floating Monument 
of the Maps, with two remarkable peaks; but, like 
that one, both are without a known and fixed abiding 
place. 

But let Penny tell his own story, or rather, his 
two stories. On the 16th of May, 1851, when 
standing on Point Surprise, “ a very low point,” he 
says— 

“ To the North and North East, the land could be seen 
very bold at a distance of about twenty miles, and its deep 
bays could be distinguished very clearly. 

“At a considerable distance from the Coast line, in Prince 
Albert Land, there is a range of rugged hills, which in one 
part rises high above the ordinary level of the land, and 
appears to be the most Northern point that could be dis¬ 
covered from the position which I occupied. This I named 
Sir John Barrow’s Monument.” 

On reading this, the first question suggested by 
it, is, what is the bearing and the distance from Point 
Surprise, of Sir John Barrow’s Monument; but 
neither bearing nor distance is given. The “ range 
of rugged hills,” “the most northern point that 
could be discovered” from Point Surprise, may have 
been any where between N. W. and N. E., and at 
an indefinite distance inland or coastwise, according 
to its elevation. 

But this rugged-hill Monument, wherever it may 
be, was not satisfactory. It was too much like De 
Haven’s Mount Franklin. Something more im¬ 
posing was wanted. Penny, accordingly, discovered 
one, just such as was required. 

On the 10th of July, (precisely two months after 


22 


the discovery of his rugged hills,) he was on the 
east side of Dundas Island, about ten miles N. W. 
from Cape Surprise— 

“At eight A. M. we started; and as the weather was per- 
fectly clear, the Chart was taken to the highest hill-top, and 
spread out. 

“ The compass being next thing to useless, the card of it 
was taken, and by its assistance, bearings were taken and 
'positions assigned to every point of land and island , with, I 
believe, considerable accuracy from the sun. They might 
be a little out; but as every precaution was observed to se¬ 
cure accuracy, it must have been little. 

“From Cape Beecher, on the North shore, the land could 
be seen trending away to the N. W. to a distance of sixty or 
seventy miles. It is very bold land. 

“ The land on the west side of Queen Victoria Channel 
appeared to extend due north from the north side of Bathurst 
Island, which by this time had been proved to be continuous 
with Cornwallis Island to the eastward. 

“At the remotest distance that could be seen in Prince 
Albert Land , we again observed the snow-clad mountains , 
often enveloped in clouds , which had been named Sir John 
Barrow's Monument. 

“It was seen several times since Hamilton Island had 
been reached with the boat; but at no time had we so clear 
a view of it as on this day. 

“ Nothing but water was seen to the N. W. in Queen Vic¬ 
toria Channel, as far as the eye could reach.” 

Snow-clad mountains often enveloped in clouds! 
This was a monument worthy of Sir John Barrow. 
The wealth of England cannot erect such a monu¬ 
ment to the Duke of Wellington. Mount Franklin 
is a mole hill compared to it. 

Yet this snow-clad mountain discovery is not 
without its embarrassments. Like its rugged hill 
predecessor, no hint is given of its position. It is 
left afloat and adrift, and may bring up any where 
between N. W. and N. E. Besides, in May, when 


23 


the snow still maintained its utmost extent of breadth 
and depth, while the Monument was merely a range 
of hills, there was no mention of snow on their tops; 
but in the middle of July, the Monument consisted of 
“ snow-clad mountains, often enveloped in clouds.” 

The retention of both these discoveries in the 
printed Journal was exceedingly indiscreet. The 
rugged hills of May did very well, and would have 
been quite sufficient if the snow-clad mountains of 
July had been omitted; or, the latter would have 
answered admirably if the former had been thrown 
out. The unfortunate appearance of both may be 
attributed to the carelessness of the getters-up of the 
narrative. But Penny cannot complain, for he, too, 
was careless; he not only omitted all mention of 
either in his Report, but he also neglected to mark 
either of them on his Chart. 

Yet his chart appears to have been in requisition 
on all occasions when the sun could be seen ; and 
doubtless, as c( bearings were taken and positions as¬ 
signed to every point of land and island,” every 
thing he saw, or believed or imagined he saw—every 
thing to which a name has been given, was carefully 
noted, and had a place assigned to it, and yet not a 
trace of either of his or Sir John Barrow’s Monu¬ 
ments is found there. 

This omission, however, was caused by his care¬ 
lessly omitting to discover a Monument before a copy 
of his chart passed out of his hands into Captain 
Austin’s. This was on the 11th of August, 1851, 
the day before he commenced his return voyage to 


24 


England; and before the Monument was thought of, 
or De Haven’s Mount Franklin had been heard of. 
The non-discovery by Penny was first discovered 
when De Haven’s discovery was announced. Then 
an English discovery became indispensable ; and Sir 
John Barrow’s Monuments were, all of them, dis¬ 
covered—that with the two remarkable peaks; the 
next, the rugged hills; and third, the snow-clad 
mountains. The first occupied several different 
positions on the maps, while the others are to be 
found no where. And these things—these Monu¬ 
ments—are sent forth with apparent seriousness as 
English geographical discoveries, when they are 
nothing but monuments of English skill in the art of 
discovery. 

There is, however, one chance yet for the release 
of the Admiralty from the perplexities caused by the 
erratic transitions of their ambulatory Monument. 
Captain Belcher went up Wellington Channel with 
his ship and a steamer, in August, 1852, through, as 
Inglefield reports, a very open sea. Belcher, if he 
crossed De Haven’s Bay, will bring back with him 
an accurate delineation of the southern coast of 
Grinnell Land, with its capes, and its hills, and its 
mountains. From these the Board can easily select 
one, (it may be Cape Simpkinson,) and point to it 
in triumph, as Sir John Barrow’s Monument, found 
at last, in place, fixed, and immoveable. 

De Haven’s Mount Franklin had been pressed 
into their service by the Admiralty, to build up Sir 


25 


John Barrow’s Monument, just as Grinnell Land 
was removed to make room for “Albert” land; in 
return they made De Haven the discoverer of Ham¬ 
ilton Island. In other words, they deny that he saw 
what he did see, and make him see what he could 
not see ; and this with his Report before them, for 
a copy of which they were indebted to the courtesy 
of the American Minister—a courtesy, by the way, 
that was neither appreciated nor reciprocated. Their 
Lordships omitted to send a copy of the English 
Expedition Reports to the Navy Department of the 
United States. 

After they had given De Haven’s Report a careful 
examination and compared it “with that which had 
been published there,” their Lordships, it appears, 
“ directed” the Hydrographer to reject the Ameri¬ 
can Discovery of Grinnell Land, and mark on the 
Southern part of Hamilton Island—“ the Grinnell 
Land of the U. S. Squadron.” 

This “ direction” of their Lordships to the Hy¬ 
drographer was an act of deliberate and gratuitous 
official rudeness towards the United States; while 
it also imputed to De Haven ignorance or falsehood, 
though a single fact does not exist to give the slight¬ 
est color for the gross and groundless imputation. 
The Admiralty Lords did not appear to know that 
these United States had some time since ceased to 
be English Colonies, and no longer formed a part of 
British America. They could scarcely have treated 
Jamaica or even Canada more cavalierly. De Ha¬ 
ven’s Discovery was set aside with as little ceremony 
4 


26 


as Godfrey’s Quadrant was converted into “Hadley’s 
Quadrant” more than a hundred years ago. 

To expose the absurdity and the folly of the Ad¬ 
miralty in this matter, it is only necessary to ascer¬ 
tain when, and how, and by whom, Hamilton Island 
was discovered. 

Penny discovered Hamilton Island on the 15th of 
May, 1851. In his letter to the Admiralty of Sep¬ 
tember 8th, of that year, he says, he reached Point 
Decision, (Cape Graham,) at half past ten P. M., on 
the 12th of May— 

“ A hill of 400 feet in height was ascended, and in con¬ 
sequence of the land being seen continuous in a Northwester¬ 
ly direction, instructions were left to Mr. Goodsir to take the 
coast along to the Westward, while I myself proceeded in a 
N. W. by N. direction from Point Decision. 

“At five P. M. on the 14th we encamped on the Ice, having 
travelled twenty-five miles from Point Decision. 

“ The following day, after travelling twenty miles from 
this encampment, in a N. W. by N. direction, we landed at 
seven P. M. on an Island named Baillie Hamilton Island.” 

In his Journal, which was also in the possession 
of the Admiralty, Penny, on the same 12th of May, 
says— 

“At 7J P. M. we started, and proceeded around Cape Do 
Haven, and to the Point beyond it, [his Point Decision,] 
which we reached in about two hours. 

“At this Point I ascended a hill, about four hundred feet 
high, from whence I could see land stretching from the' oppo¬ 
site side of the Channel northward to a point bearing about 
N. E., and appearing to be continued Northwestward, as if 
it should join the land on which I stood, which stretched 
away about N. W.” 

The violence of a storm prevented his travelling 
on the 13th. On the 14th, at five P. M., he started 


27 


again, and, according to his Track Chart, took nearly 
a due North course towards the land he had seen in 
the North But he says— 

“Our course was N. W. and by N., and the distance 
twenty-five to thirty miles. At midnight we encamped and 
served out two pounds of meat to each of the dogs. 

“From our encampment a large Island was seen bearing 
about N. W., which was named after Captain W. A. B. Ham¬ 
ilton, Secretary of the Admiralty.” 

He left this encampment on the Ice at half past 
one P. M., May 15, 1851, and reached Hamilton 
Island at half past seven P. M. the same day. The 
distance he gives is at least twenty miles. He adds— 

“ The moment we landed I set out to a bold head land, or 
I should say rather, the S. E. point of the Island, (75° 44' 
N.,) but I found no traces of the missing ships; and from 
this my inference was that Sir John Franklin had kept along 
the North Land, which I had seen from Point Decision.” 

This is Penny’s account of his discovery of Ham¬ 
ilton Island. He did not see it from the hill-top 
four hundred feet above his “newly discovered sea,” 
at Point Decision. There the land in the North ap¬ 
peared to continue Northwestward, as if it should 
join the land on which he stood. He saw neither 
Island nor Channel between his point of observation 
and the land to the North. It appeared to him as 
one continuous land. 

There was something then that hid Maury Chan¬ 
nel from him. On referring to the Admiralty Chart 
no obstruction can be discovered. Point Philips is 
entirely out of the way, and the southern shore of 
Hamilton Island is fully open to view in its whole 
extent westward. 

Penny is the only authority the Admiralty had on 


28 


the discovery of Hamilton Island; and they appear 
to have placed full confidence in all he said, not¬ 
withstanding his line of travel on his Track Chart 
differs materially from that on his Map, and neither 
agrees with his Report or his Journal. In such a case 
it is fair to compare Penny with Penny—his Charts 
with each other and with his Report and his Journal, 
to see how far he may be relied on as a faithful and 
accurate historiographer. On such a comparison it 
may appear that the actual position of Hamilton Is¬ 
land is very uncertain, and that though the Admi¬ 
ralty have made its southern shore “ the Grinnell 
Land of the U. S. Squadron,” it may be their Lord- 
ships do not know precisely w T here the land is which 
they have taken the liberty so to designate. 

According to Penny’s Track Chart, of August 
11, 1851, his courses from Point Decision to Cape 
Scoresby on Hamilton Island, were—North 2° West, 
16 miles; North 34° West, 12 miles; and North 89° 
West, 11 miles; making the whole distance travelled 
thirty-nine miles. 

In his Map of September 20, 1851, he changes 
his place of landing on Hamilton Island, from Cape 
Scoresby to Cape (Captain R. Navy) Washington. 
This Map makes the route from Cape Decision to 
Hamilton Island, North 22° West, 14 miles, and 
North 67° West, 13 miles ; twenty-seven miles in all. 

From his Report and Journal it appears that he 
first saw Hamilton Island on the 15th of May, from 
his encampment on the Ice. His encampment was 
twenty-five or thirty miles N. W. by N. from Point 


29 


Decision; and from his encampment to the Island 
the distance was at least twenty miles, in a N. W. or 
a N. W by N. direction. This makes the distance 
at least forty-five or fifty miles. 

Penny’s bearings and distances, as he gives them, 
would place his encampment at midnight of the 14th 
of May on Hamilton Island, and not twenty miles to 
the S. E. of it on the Ice; and by travelling twenty 
miles farther to the N. W., instead of landing on 
Hamilton Island, he would have passed entirely over 
that Island, crossed the Middle Channel with its six 
knot current, and at half past seven P. M., on the 
15th, landed at Cape Crozier on Dundas Island ! All 
this, absurd and preposterous as it is, is given to the 
world without rebuke or animadversion, but as a 
grave matter of fact. 

It is wonderful that the Admiralty did not see these 
incongruities when they examined Penny’s Report. 
Misled by their own map, which was merely an of¬ 
fice improvement of Penny’s, they were led into the 
blunder of making De Haven see, instead of Grin¬ 
ned Land, the southern shore of Hamilton Island, 
without any authority and against all authority. 

On leaving the Admiralty Chart and turning to 
the western coast line of Wellington Channel as laid 
down from the points and angles in De Haven’s log, 
the confusion and difficulty at once disappear. The 
reason why Penny did not see Hamilton Island from 
his Point Decison, is made apparent. The Cape 
to the North of him (Cape Manning) shut out 
Maury Channel from his sight. He, from his elevated 


30 


position, no doubt did see the hills on the Island, but 
not suspecting a channel was there, he supposed the 
land he saw to the North and West was all continu¬ 
ous with that on which he stood. When he first saw 
Hamilton Island, he was according to his Journal, thirty 
miles north of De Haven’s northernmost position. 

De Haven was nearly opposite Kane Inlet, a short 
distance to the Southward and Eastward of Cape 
Graham, (Penny’s Point Decision,) on the 22d of 
September, 1850. Speaking of Cornwallis Island, 
he says—'“This latter Island, trending by N. W. 
“ from our position, terminated abruptly in an eleva- 
“ ted Cape, to which I gave the name of Manning.” 
He could not see to the westward of this Cape. A 
line from the Advance, passing Cape Manning, would 
strike the coast of Grinnell Land near Point Majendie, 
but pass to the Eastward of both Dundas and Hamil¬ 
ton Islands, neither of which could be seen from the 
ship. 

If the Admiralty will abandon the guess-work hy¬ 
drography of Penny and take the survey of De Ha¬ 
ven, they can then understand why it was that Ham¬ 
ilton Island could not be seen by De Haven from any 
position he was in ; and, if their “direction” to the 
Hydrographer to mark on that Island—“ the Grin¬ 
nell Land of the U. S. Squadron,” was really given in 
honest ignorance, it will make the absurditv of their 
“ direction” manifest even to themselves. 

Another point remains for examination at this 
time—it is as to the official interference in support of 


31 


the English pretensions to the discovery of “Albert” 
land, and their efforts to set aside the Discovery of 
Grinnell Land. 

On the 22d of October, 1851, a Committee was ap¬ 
pointed by the Admiralty to “ inquire into and report 
“on the conduct of the officers [Austin and Penny] 
“ entrusted with the command of the late Expeditions 
“in search of Sir John Franklin.” So much ap¬ 
pears in the published instructions of the Admiralty. 
But the attention of the Committee was also directed 
to another matter, not found there, namely, whether 
it was possible for a vessel to be as far North in Wel¬ 
lington Channel in 1850, as De Haven says his were 
driven by the Ice in the month of September of 
that year. 

From the middle of September, 1850, when the 
English ships were frozen in, in Barrow Strait, north 
of Griffith Island, to the 11th of August, 1851, when 
they were released, nothing could be done, except 
by the travelling parties. These parties were sent 
out in April and May, 1851. For seven months, 
then, from September, 1850, they could know nothing 
of the Ice in Wellington Channel. It was impossible 
they should know anything of it. Yet very particu¬ 
lar inquiries were made by the Arctic Committee, as 
to the condition of the Ice in the Channel during 
the whole winter. 

These inquiries could have no reference to any 
operations of the English Expeditions, which were 
immoveable for eleven months, nor to “ the conduct 
of the officers entrusted with the command of the 


32 


Expeditions/’ neither of whom, nor any under their 
command, could answer the questions from facts with¬ 
in own their knowledge. The questions, how r ever, 
were pressed upon the witnesses ; but the information 
they elicited was not what was desired. 

Although the Ice when last seen in 1850, blocked 
up Wellington Channel from shore to shore, and 
when first seen in 1851, it then blocked up the Chan¬ 
nel from shore to shore, it had not during the seven 
intervening months remained in that condition, un¬ 
broken and solid from shore to shore, blocking De 
Haven out of the Channel. All the witnesses, with 
the exception of Captain Penny, agreed in opinion 
that there had been a disruption of the Ice in the 
Channel—a disruption such as De Haven describes. 
Thus, instead of contradicting, they confirmed De 
Haven’s statement, at least so far as related to the 
possibility of his vessel’s being carried up the Channel 
to 75° 25' North. 

Their opinions on this subject will be found in the 
following extracts from the Evidence given before 
the Arctic Committee. 

Captain Penny, October 27, 1851. 

c< 6. Chairman , (Rear Admiral Bowles.) —Do you believe 
the Channel cleared at all last year ? 

“ Captain Penny. —I do not think it did. It was my 
opinion as well as the officers whom I requested to examine 
the Ice, that fifteen miles of old Ice remained in that Channel. 

“7. Sir E. Parry. —I think you said in your evidence at 
Woolwich, that about fifteen miles of Ice were left at the last 
time ? 

u Captain Penny. —Yes; Dr. Sutherland was the officer 
who was appointed to examine that Ice, and it was his opinion 
also that fifteen miles remained . 


33 


“8. Chairman. —-Do you say that in 1850 the Channel was 
never opened at all ? 

“ Captain Penny. —Such is my opinion. 

0. Chairman. —Was there any possibility of a vessel going 
up the Channel last year ? 

“ Captain Penny. —No possibility of any.” 

This was Penny’s unqualified opinion. There was 
no possibility of a vessel going up the Channel in 
J850, as fifteen miles of old Ice remained across it; 
and he is positive in this, on the authority of the 
officers who had been requested to examine it. If 
there was “ no possibility of a vessel going up the 
Channel/’ then De Haven could not go up, and all he 
said about being as far North as 75° 25' was a mere 
fabrication. This was what Penny intended to say. 
But what did his officers say ? 

Captain A. Stewart, October 27, 1851. 

“ 166. Sir E. Parry. —How much Ice do you think remain¬ 
ed in Wellington Strait? What breadth of Ice remained 
unbroken there in 1850. 

“ Captain Stewart. —I should say from twenty to thirty 
miles. 

“ 167. Sir E. Parry. —So much as that? 

u Captain Stewart. —Yes. 

“ 168. Sir E. Parry. —From your own observation in 1851, 
when you were travelling, do you think there were from 
twenty to thirty miles of old Ice not broken up in the Autumn 
of 1850? 

“ Captain Stewart. —I think it was broken up , but it did 
not come out.” 

Here was a question that merely required the brief 
answer of “yes/’ to increase the breadth of Penny’s 
unbroken barrier of fifteen miles to one of twenty or 
thirty miles. Twenty to thirty miles of unbroken 
Ice, in September, October ; and November, 1850 ! 
the precise time when De Haven was there—it would 
5 


34 


have put him to shame and silenced him forever. 
But Captain Stewart could not give the desired an¬ 
swer, “yes.” He thought the Ice was broken up — 
that there was no solid unbroken barrier across the 
Channel. So far the “ no possibility” of Captain 
Penny was removed. But Dr. Sutherland was more 
explicit. He thought vessels might have gone up the 
Channel in the Autumn of 1850. 

Dr. Sutherland, October 28, 1851. 

“ 264. Sir B. Parry. —Is it your impression from what you 
saw in your journey, that Wellington Strait had been clear 
that year (1850) after you left ? 

“ Dr. Sutherland. —I am sure it was not clear of ice alto¬ 
gether, but I feel confident the ice in Wellington Channel had 
started, and that it was navigable at a period subsequent to 
our crossing it in the ships. 

“267. Captain Beechey. —What reason have you for be¬ 
lieving that the ice was loose ? 

“Dr. Sutherland. —From our observations the following 
year. In 1851, we found from Cape Separation new Ice ex¬ 
tending to President Bay, but old Ice amongst it angled to¬ 
gether, as though the Ice had been drifting about. 

“ 268. Captain Beechey. —Then to the Northward of Pre¬ 
sident Bay, do you suppose that it was loose also ? 

“ Dr. Sutherland. —I am sure it was loose also. There were 
five miles of Ice extending along the land, of one year’s for¬ 
mation. From what I saw of the Ice on our journey, subse¬ 
quently to the visit of the ships in Autumn, there had been a 
disruption of the Ice in Wellington Channel/’ 

Now, what has become of Penny’s fifteen miles of 
unbroken Ice across the Channel, which he said re¬ 
mained there, and which of course shut De Haven 
out ? Dr. Sutherland told the Committee it did not 
exist—that there had been a disruption of the Ice in 
Wellington Channel. Mr. Marshall, Dr. Goodsir r 
and Mr. John Stuart, all agree with Dr. Sutherland 


35 


that the Ice in the Channel was loose and broken lip 
after the 10th of September, 1850. 

Mr. Marshall, October 81, 1851. 

“ 548. Chairman. —When was it you saw Wellington 
Strait last, the north end of it ? 

“ Mr. Marshall. —On the first of June. 

“ 549. Chairman. —What was your opinion of the state 
and character of the Ice in the Strait itself? Did you think it 
fast Ice, likely to remain in the Channel, or that it might 
come away with a strong breeze from the Northward? 

“ Mr. Marshall. —I believe the whole of it was one year 8 
Ice . 

“ 556. Chairman. —Do you consider that the Wellington 
Strait was navigable in 1850 ? 

“Mr. Marshall. —Yes, in the latter part I consider it was 
navigable. 

“ 557. Chairman. —You think all the Ice came out of 
that year ? 

“ Mr. Marshall. —Yes, I am quite certain of it. 

“558. Sir E. Parry. —What! after the navigable season 
had closed, did the Ice come out ? 

“ Mr. Marshall. —Yes.” 

Dr. Goodsir, November 3, 1851. 

“ 656. Chairman. —Did you, either in going or in returning, 
examine the Ice in Wellington Strait, properly so called— 
the line of Ice marked above and below in the Chart ? 

“Mr. Goodsir. —Yes, we did. 

“ 657. Chairman. —What was your opinion of it ? 

“ Mr. Goodsir. —I saw no Ice of the previous season until 
I came to the Westward of Point Decision, between Point 
Decision [Cape Graham] and Point Philips [Cape Manning,] 
where we passed over detached pieces of Ice two years old. 
All the other was of the formation of 1850—1851, as far as 
I am able to judge; indeed, I am almost confident of it. I 
may mention that Petersen, [of Uppernavik,] the Interpreter, 
had the same opinion, that it was the Ice of one season.” 

Mr. John Stuart, November 3, 1851. 

“751. Chairman. —How far did you go? 

“Mr. Stuart. —We started from Assistance Harbour, and 
proceeded up the Wellington Strait as far as point Separa¬ 
tion, crossed over a little to the southward of Cape Grinnell, 


36 


and then proceeded along the shores of North Devon to Cape 
Hurd. 

“ T52. Chairman .—Describe the appearance of the Ice in 
Wellington Strait. 

“Mr. Stuart .—It was perfectly smooth; covered with deep 
snow. We met at different parts as we crossed over what we 
thought to be old Ice, but they were detached pieces apparent¬ 
ly left there, and the new Ice formed around them.” 

Penny was left alone. His positive declaration 
that there was u no possibilityof a vessel going 
up the Channel, is not sustained by one of his offi¬ 
cers. There was not one that did not say the old Ice 
was broken up. They removed the impossibility 
from De Haven’s path. But, as there was no allusion 
to the presence of the American Expedition up the 
Channel; it might have been inferred that the ques¬ 
tions of the Committee were prompted solely by a 
desire to obtain information in relation to the possible 
operations of the immoveable English Expeditions, 
and were’wholly uninfluenced by a wish to impeach 
De Haven’s veracity, or a disposition to prevent, on 
the part of the witnesses, any admission of the fact 
that he was up the Channel to 75° 25' N. in a posi¬ 
tion from whence Grinnell Land could be seen. 

If any were credulous enough to be deluded into 
such a belief, the Committee in an unguarded mo¬ 
ment dispelled the delusion. On the 4th of Novem¬ 
ber, Lieutenant IVPClintock, of the Assistance, Cap¬ 
tain Ommanney’s ship, was examined— 

Lt. M‘Clintock, November 4, 1851. 

“ 824. Chairman .—Then it was your opinion that Welling¬ 
ton Strait had not been opened for any purpose of Naviga¬ 
tion, during the preceding year, 1849? 

“ Lt. M‘Clintock —Just so. 


37 


“ 825. Chairman. —Have you any reason to believe that it 
opened in 1850? 

“ Lt. 3L Clintock. —I think it did open. 

“826. Chairman. —You think it opened completely for 
navigation, in 1850? 

“ Lt. Clintock. —I cannot say to what extent, perhaps 

about thirty or forty miles. 

“827. Chairman. —What I ask you is, whether the Wel¬ 
lington Strait was navigable during 1850, whether the ships 
could go in ? 

“ Lt. M 1, Clintock. —Yes, from what I have been told by 
Captain Penny, and from what I have heard of the American 
Expedition 8 having drifted up, I think so. 

“ 828. Chairman. —What do you know of the American 
Expedition's drifting up ? 

“ Lt. Clintock. —They drifted up to 75° 25' from the 

published account. 

“ 829. Chairman. —Do you know from your own knowledge 
what progress the Americans made to the Northward? 

“Lt. Clintock. —No, I do not. 

“ 830. Chairman. —Can you speak of your own knowledge 
further about the navigation of Wellington Strait at that 
time ? 

“Lt. 3f‘Clintock. —No.” 

Certainly not. The Committee knew he could 
answer none of their questions about the Ice in Wel¬ 
lington Channel from his own knowledge. They 
knew he had not seen the Ice in that Channel be¬ 
tween September, 1850, and August, 1851. He 
had been in an opposite direction from Wellington 
Channel. He had charge of the Western Expedi¬ 
tion, and went as far as Liddon’s Gulf, on the west¬ 
ern coast of Melville Island. He had seen nothing 
of the Ice in Wellington Channel but what he saw 
when crossing it in the ship in August, 1850, and 
August, 1851. Of the other witnesses who were 
examined, none could know anything about it " from 


SB 


their own knowledge.” Not one of them had, from 
September, 1850, to April, 1851, been where, from 
an examination of the Channel, he could give evi¬ 
dence “ from his own knowledge” as to the condi¬ 
tion of the Ice in it “ at that time.” 

Lt. M‘Clintock, like the other witnesses, in answer 
to the questions of the Committee, expressed his 
opinion ; and, like the others, when called upon, 
submitted his reasons for the opinion he had given. 
The reasons of none of the others gave offence to 
the Committee. But M^Clintock unluckily referred 
to the American vessels in connection with 75° 25' 
North Latitude. It was this that caused the very 
unnecessary question by the Committee—“ Do you 
know of your own knowledge what progress the 
Americans made to the Northward?” The Commit¬ 
tee knew that none but De Haven, and Kane, and 
Griffin, and the crews of the American Expedition 
could, from their own knowledge, speak of the pro¬ 
gress the Americans made to the Northward. 

The rebuff M'Clintock received was such an une¬ 
quivocal indication of the disposition of the Commit¬ 
tee to discountenance any allusion to the Northern 
position of the American ships, that the fact was 
not mentioned again; and it was so well under¬ 
stood by Dr. Sutherland, that he suppressed it in his 
own printed Journal, published more than eight 
months afterwards. 

If it had been the desire of the Arctic Committee 
to seek information, whatever bearing it might have, 
there was nothing irregular, or objectionable, or in- 


39 


decorous, or offensive, in what JYPClintock had 
said of the American ships, that Ci they drifted up 
to 75° 25', from the published account.” But this 
was not the kind of information the Committee want¬ 
ed. What was desired was such as had been given 
in Penny’s evidence, that the Channel was never 
opened at all in 1850, and that there was no possi¬ 
bility of any vessel going up it that year. 

What was offensive was JYPClintock’s expressing 
an opinion admitting the possibility that what De 
Haven had said, might be true. The Admiralty had 
not yet determined how far they could venture in 
discrediting De Haven, and any admission such as 
JVPClintock made, interfered with their plans. There 
can be no wonder, then, that the forgetfulness of 
Lieutenant JVPClintoek, as to what was expected of 
him, excited the astonishment of the Committee and 
the anger of its Chairman. 

But it may be asked, how is it ascertained th e 
Br itish Admiralty interfered at all in the matter, or 
in any way participated in the denial ot De Haven’s 
Discovery, or in the attempt to fasten the name of 
“ Albert” upon Grinnell Land ? 

Before an answer is given to this question, it may 
be well to know what the Admiralty Board is, and 
what are some of the powers and duties of the Lords 
of which it is composed. 

Since 1828, when the duke of Clarence resigned, 
the office of Lord High Admiral haS been in commis¬ 
sion, and the powers and duties of the office are with 


40 


six commissioners, who are known as the “ Lords 
Commissioners of the Admiralty.” These constitute 
the Board of Admiralty. Of the six, there is a First 
Lord and five Junior Lords. Of the five Junior Lords, 
four are Sea Lords, and one a Civil Lord. All the 
Lords, and their Secretary, are eligible to seats in 
Parliament, and five of the seven occupied seats there 
in 1850. In the management of the affairs of the 
Navy, the five Junior Lords are at the head of the 
several departments of the service ; the duties of the 
Sea Lords resemble somewhat those of the Chiefs of 
our Navy Bureaus; the duties of the Fifth, or Civil 
Lord, are like those of the Fourth Auditor of the 
Treasury here; and the position of the Secretary and 
Assistant Secretary of the Admiralty, is similar to that 
of the Chief Clerk and Corresponding Clerk of the 
Navy Department in our service. 

The great difference is in the head of the Naval 
Establishments of America and England. Here, the 
Secretary of the Navy, has, under the President, the 
general control of all the affairs of the Navy ; but his 
powers are defined by law. Every officer of the 
Navy is appointed and promoted by the highest pow¬ 
ers in the land—the President and the Senate of the 
United States, and not by any inferior authority, as 
in England. 

In England the Lords of the Admiralty have the 
entire and absolute control of all the affairs of the 
Navy, and of every officer in the service. In their 
division of their*authority the First Lord takes to 
himself as part of his share, “ the political affairs, the 


41 


slave trade, the patronage, and the general con¬ 
cerns of the Navy. 55 He has the appointment of Ad¬ 
mirals, Captains, Commanders, and Lieutenants to 
separate commands. The step from Captain to Ad¬ 
miral is by seniority, but the promotion to Captain, 
Commander, Lieutenant, and generally all promo¬ 
tions, except Master and Warrant Officers, rest with 
the First Lord. 

When a Committee of Parliament, in search of 
information which it must be presumed was not to be 
found on the Statute Book, with evident hesitation 
and with great delerence^ inquired of Sir Francis 
Thornhill Baring, the First Lord— 

“ With regard to the higher appointments of Sur¬ 
veyor of the Navy and Officers of that rank, are 
they in the gift of the Prime Minister or in that of 
the First Lord? 55 

His haughty answer was— 

“ They are with me. With regard to the Navy, 
the whole of the patronage of the Navy rests with the 
First Lord, with the exception of the Vice Admiral 
and the Rear Admiral of England; those are with 
the Prime Minister. 55 

With the immense and irresponsible patronage of 
the First Lord, and the powers exercised by the Board 
over Fleets, Ships, Docks, Yards, and every thing 
else in every ramification of the service, what can they 
not do ? Who dare brave their will ? Who can resist 
the influence of their wishes? The patronage and 
the powers of the Admiralty give to the Board a con¬ 
trol over the minds of all within its reach, as absolute, 
6 


42 


and as unquestioned, and as irresistible, as the Inqui¬ 
sition ever exerted or claimed in the palmiest days ol 
its existence. 

To return to the question stated above, as to the 
interference of the Admiralty with De Haven’s Dis¬ 
covery of Grinnell Land. It may be answered, in the 
first place, that the absolute control exerted by the 
Board over every thing having an Admiralty mark 
or an Admiralty affinity, is of itself, sufficient evi¬ 
dence that, as one of “ the political affairs” over 
which they claimed jurisdiction, “Albert” land was 
placed on their Chart by their direction ; and, in the 
second place, that the positive evidence of such an 
interference is furnished by Admiral Sir Francis 
Beaufort, their Hydrographer. It is but fair to say 
here, that in his office of Hydrographer, Admiral 
Beaufort acted under the immediate direction of 
Captain Milne, the third Sea Lord, and therefore 
should not be held responsible for the removal of 
Grinnell Land to Hamilton Island. 

As early as the 18th of November, 1851, Messrs. 
E. and G. W. Blunt, of New York, called the 
attention of Sir Francis Beaufort to the fact of De 
Haven’s Discovery in 1850. Their letter was replied 
to by the Hydrographer, on the 5th of December, 
1851. On the receipt of this reply it was enclosed to 
the Secretary of the Navy by the Messrs. Blunt, on 
the 24th of December, 1851. [A] 

Sir Francis Beaufort, in his letter of the 5th of 
December, [B] acknowledges the receipt from 
Messrs. Blunt, of “ an engraved sketch of the region 


43 


round the Wellington Channel, and a tracing of the 
Grinnell vessels’ track up that Channel nearly to 
75^-° North latitude .” He then adds— 

u f 11 laying these before the Board, I pointed out how very 
desirable it is, that the U. States and the English Charts 
should agree in the nomenclature applied to them. To thus 
principle their Lordships fully agreed, but added, that before 
they could decide on any specific point, it would be necessary 
to see Captain De Haven's Report, in order to compare it 
with that which had been published here. 

“If you will therefore be so good as to send me a copy of 
that paper, their Lordships will at once give me directions how 
to act on the point in question, and you may rest assured that 
not an hour shall be lost in transmitting the result to you.” 

The letters of Messrs. Blunt and Sir Francis 
Beaufort were referred by the Navy Department to 
Lieutenant Maury. On the 29th of December, the 
day Lieutenant Maury made his report, [C] he re¬ 
ceived in a Letter from Lieutenant De Haven, a copy 
of one to him, from Mr. J. Parker, dated Admiralty, 
November 24th, 1851. [D] In this letter Mr. 

Parker says— 

“My Lords further direct me to express their hope, that 
you will gratify them by transmitting at your earliest con¬ 
venience a copy of the proceedings of the Advance and Res¬ 
cue, in order that the same may be placed on record at the 
Admiralty.” 

No inquiry has been made as to what reply, if any, 
was returned to this modest request of Mr. Parker, 
made by the direction of their Lordships. But this 
is not the place to discuss the propriety of these un¬ 
official and irregular attempts of their Lordships to 
obtain indirectly an official paper of the American 
'Government. It may be enough to say here, that 


44 


these attempts were gross violations of international 
courtesy. They knew De Haven had no more right 
to “ gratify them,” than Captain Austin would have 
had to “ gratify” the American Government, in the 
same way, on the request of a Clerk in the Navy 
Department. There was a respectful and plain way 
to procure what they were so anxious to obtain. It 
was only for their Lordships, not one of their clerks, 
to transmit a copy of the Report of their Expeditions 
to the Secretary of the Navy, and request a copy 
of the American Report in return. This would have 
been sufficient. It would not have been necessary 
to add “ at your earliest convenience,” nor hold out 
the exceedingly flattering inducement for haste, “in 
order that it may be placed on Record at the Admi¬ 
ralty.” The American Government knows how to 
treat with respect any proper request from the public 
authorities of another nation. 

In Lieutenant Maury’s Report to the Secretary of 
the Navy, he says—• 

“I beg leave to state that the desire manifested by the 
English Hydrographer, that ‘the United States and English 
Charts should agree in the nomenclature applied to them,’ is 
fully appreciated and cordially reciprocated.” 

And he adds— 

“ The entire Chart will be published in a few days, unless 
you desire its delay in order that before either it, or the 
English Chart shall be published, the discrepancies as to the 
nomenclature may be reconciled.” 

Lieutenant Maury is no diplomatist. He knows 
nothing of the wiles of diplomacy. He deals with 
facts. He took it for granted the desire expressed 


45 


by the Admiralty through the Hydrographer, that 
the American and English Charts “ should agree in 
the nomenclature applied to them/’ was made in 
good faith, and would be carried out in good faith ; 
and that as soon as they received a copy of De Ha¬ 
ven’s report they would adopt the American nomen¬ 
clature lor De Haven’s Discoveries, while that of the 
English, lor their discoveries, would be adopted in 
America. As the proposition came from the English 
Admiralty , through their Hydrographer, Lieutenant 
Maury supposed the question was, of course, open, to 
be decided by the evidence of priority of discovery, to 
be ascertained from the Reports of the Expeditions, 
prior to the publication of any Chart. In short, he 
believed that what the Hydrographer said of the 
wishes and intentions of the Admiralty was true. 
He could not suspect that, in such a representation 
from such a source, any thing unfair was intended. 
He as little suspected that before his letter was sealed, 
he would have occasion to record the fact mentioned 
in his postscript, that he had just received an Admi¬ 
ralty Chart, which covered and occupied all De Ha¬ 
ven’s ground, and appropriated the whole of it, no¬ 
menclature and all, to Penny. Yet such was the 
fact. They had already seized upon every thing. 

Notwithstanding this clear and palpable detection 
and proof of their insincerity, the Secretary of the 
Navy, who considered the thing unworthy his no¬ 
tice, authorized De Haven, at his discretion, to send 
them a copy of his report. [E] 

When this Report, after their attempts to procure 


46 


it privately had failed, was regularly and officially 
before them, what did their Lordships do ? The 
result of their examination of it, and consultations 
over it, is seen in their Chart of April 8, 1852. 

Did they manifest any disposition to agree with 
the United States upon the nomenclature to be ap¬ 
plied to the American and English Charts? No: 
though it was their own suggestion to do so, they 
manifested a determination to treat it with silent 
contempt—they even presumed to decide for Amer¬ 
ica as well as for England. 

Did they treat De Haven with the respect due to 
an American officer, a volunteer in the Search for 
their own missing ships, and their officers and crews? 
No : they endeavored to take from him his discove¬ 
ries, and they assailed his good name as an officer 
and a gentleman. 

Did they admit he discovered Grinned*Land ? No : 
they deny that he made any such discovery, and 
retain on their Charts, to the exclusion of Grinned 
Land, Ommanney’s repudiated birthday discovery 
of “ Albert” land. 

Did they admit that De Haven was in Wellington 
Channel at ad on the 22d of September, 1850? 
Yes: they admitted this, having, failed in their ef¬ 
forts to block him out by a solid, unbroken barrier 
of ice fifteen miles broad. 

Did they admit he was up the Channel as far as 
75° 25' North ? No, they do not admit this. They 
say he was only far enough up the Channel, as it is 
delineated on their Chart, to see Baidie Hamilton 


47 


Island. Besides, Lieutenant IVLClintock was harshly 
rebuked for saying the American vessels (c drifted 
up to 75° 25', from the published account.” 

Did they admit he made any discovery? Yes: 
they admit he discovered the south side of Maury 
Channel. 

Did they admit he discovered Cape Manning, 
south of Maury Channel? No: they retain the 
name of Point Philips, and thus deny his discovery 
of that Cape, but beyond and to the West of it they 
make him the discoverer of Penny’s Baillie Hamilton 
island. 

Did they admit, then, that he discovered Hamil¬ 
ton Island? No: they deny that he saw that Island 
in 1850 ; for, on their map it bears the name Penny 
says he gave it, when he discovered it on the 15th 
of May, 1851. 

Do they both deny and admit that De Haven dis¬ 
covered Hamilton Island ? Yes: their Lordships 
both admit and deny his discovery of Hamilton Is¬ 
land. They say he did not see it, by giving it as a 
discovery by Penny in 1851 ; and they say he did 
discover it in 1850, by marking upon it, though in 
very small letters and in parenthesis ,—{the Grinnell 
Land of the U. S. Squadron.) 

Then, after all, they admit that De Haven did 
discover Grinnell Land? No, they do not. They 
rejected what he said as to his discovery of Grinnell 
Land, altogether, as wholly untrue; but they dis¬ 
covered another Grinnell Land for him, on Hamil¬ 
ton Island. They charge him with falsehood for 


48 


saying he discovered Grinnell Land; and they 
charge him with ignorance, for giving Grinnell Land 
as extending from N. W. to N. N. E., when they say 
Grinnell Land is no more than a small Island, which 
De Haven did not see, lying to the West of North¬ 
west. What they say of De Haven in regard to 
the discovery of Grinnell Land, they must say of 
those w’ho corroborate his statements, Griffin and 
Kane. 

In this inextricable labyrinth of contradictions, and 
admissions, and denials, by which their Lordships 
were confounded, they will be left for the present, in 
the full enjoyment of all the honor and all the glory 
they have earned in the manufacture of a pure Eng¬ 
lish discovery with the aid of their ingenious assis¬ 
tants, Erasmus Ommanney, Captain R. N., and John 
Arrowsmith, 10 Soho Square. 

America can boast of no such discoverers or dis¬ 
coveries, in the North nor in the South. America has 
neither the vanity nor the arrogance to presume to 
decide upon or to alter the nomenclature on the 
Charts of the discoveries of other nations. America 
is too proud to claim a discovery that may not be 
claimed with honor, and honesty, and truth. 
America neither struts nor flaunts in bor¬ 
rowed OR STOLEN PLUMES. 


APPENDIX. 

[A] 

New York, December 24 , 1881 . 

Sir : We enclose a note from Admiral Sir F. Beaufort, 
Hydrographer to the British Admiralty, in answer to one we 
wrote to him, claiming that the land named by the British 
“Albert Land” should be Grinnell Land, on the ground of 
priority of discovery, which the journals of the vessels can 
settle. 

Will you please have the extract made that we may send 
it per steamer, as, unless it is soon determined, the English 
publishers will claim their name, and make what is now clear 
a matter of discussion. 

We are yours, respectfully, 

E. & G. W. BLUNT, 

Hon. W. A. Graham, 


[B] 


Admiralty, Dtcembeir 5 , 1851 . 

Gentlemen : I have had the pleasure of receiving your 
letter of the 18th ultimo, containing an engraved sketch of 
the region round the Wellington Channel, and a tracing of 
the Grinnell vessels’ tracks up that Channel nearly to 75 
North Latitude. In laying them before the Board, I pointed 
out how very desirable it is that the U. States and the 
English Charts should agree in the nomenclature applied to 
them. To this principle their Lordships fully agreed; but 
added, that before they could decide on any specific point, it 
would be necessary to see Captain De Haven’s Report, in 
order to compare it^with that which has been published here. 

If you will, therefore, be so good as to send me a copy of 
that paper, their Lordships will at once give me directions 
how to act on the point in question, and you may rest as* 
7 


50 


sured that not an hour shall be lost in transmitting the result 
to you. You will much oblige me by forwarding the enclosed 
letter to Captain Ericsson. 

I am, gentlemen, your humble servant, 

F. BEAUFORT. 

Messrs. E. & G. W. Blunt. 


[C] 


National Observatory, 

Washington, December 29, 1851. 

Sir : I have received the letter from the Messrs. Blunt, 
dated New York, December 24th, to the Secretary of the 
NaVy, enclosing one from Sir Francis Beaufort, R. N., ad¬ 
dressed to themselves, requesting in behalf of the Board of 
Admiralty to be furnished with a copy of the Report of Lt. 
De Haven, the Commander of the American Expedition in 
search of Sir John Franklin and his companions, which have 
been referred to this office. 

In reply, I beg leave to state that the desire manifested by 
the English Hydrographer, that “the United States and the 
English Charts should agree, in the nomenclature applied to 
them,” is fully appreciated and cordially reciprocated here. 

I have also this morning received a letter from Lt. De 
Haven, covering the copy of one to him from the Admiralty 
Board, requesting a “ copy of the proceedings of the Ad¬ 
vance and Rescue, in order that the same may be placed on 
record at the Admiralty.” 

Lt. De Haven informs me that he has requested the per¬ 
mission of the Department to send the Report of the pro¬ 
ceedings of the Expedition to their Lordships. His report 
was not made to this office. His log-books and the materials, 
however, for the construction of a chart, were returned here, 
and from them a chart, illustrative of his cruise, has been 
constructed, and is now nearly ready for publication. 

I have already directed a proof sheet of that, as soon as 
it can be drawn, to be sent from New Y^rk to the Board of 
Admiralty, and also one to be sent to Lt. De Haven. 

The entire chart will be published in a few days, unless 
you desire its delay in order that, before either it or the 


51 


English Chart be published, the discrepancies, &c., as to the 
nomenclature may be reconciled. 

The letters referred are herewith returned. 

Respectfully, &c., 

M. F. MAURY, Lt. U. S.N. 

Hon. Wm. A. Graham, 

Secretary of the JSDxvy. 

P. S. Since writing the foregoing I have received from 
Franck Taylor, bookseller, a printed copy of the Admiralty 
Chart, entitled “Arctic America: Discoveries of the Search¬ 
ing Expeditions under the command of Captain II. T. Aus¬ 
tin, R. N. C. B., and Captain Penny. 1851.” 


p>] 

Admiralty, November 24, 1851. 

Sir : I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the 
Admiralty to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, of the 
6th of July last dated Proven, (which has just been received 
by one of the whale ships,) transmitting information of the 
progress of the Arctic Expedition, under the command of 
Captain Austin and Mr. Penny ; and in conveying to you 
their Lordships, thanks for your considerate communication, I 
am at the same time desired to express their congratulations 
at the safe return of your expedition from its perilous voyage 
in search of Sir John Franklin, and providential escape from 
dangers and privations of no ordinary character, borne with 
praiseworthy fortitude. 

My Lords further direct me to express their hope that you 
will gratify them by transmitting at your earliest convenience, 
a copy of the proceedings of the Advance and Rescue, in order 
that the same may be placed on record at the Admiralty. 

I am, sir, your most obedient servant, 

J. Parker. 

Lieut. Edward De Haven, late Corn’d. U. S. 

Arctic Expedition, New York , 


52 


[E] 


Navt Department, December 31 , 1851 


Gentlemen : Yours of the 24th instant, enclosing a note 
from Admiral Sir F. Beaufort, Hydrographer to the British 
Admiralty, has been received. 

In reply, you are informed, that Lieutenant De Haven has 
been authorized to furnish the British Admiralty, at his dis¬ 
cretion, with a copy of his report of the proceedings of the 
“ Advance” and “Rescue,” late comprising the American 
Arctic Expedition in search of Sir John Franklin and his 
companions. 

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Will. A. Graham. 

Messrs. E. k G. W. Blunt, New York. 













































V <y 


y -v 


vA 


o * * 




A** 




I O 


• U ' * * O 


* ’T^v 

w» ^ 

V* 0^ 


j. c A 


w O 


V • o 


4 o^ 

o- ^ '*•-•’*y' ■ A '*--»■' y 

y .Ay A y % y 

q > * (fOCsg A Q %<, jy * <A 

^ c>vr iwy. 

<,'..* s <0 V '° • ‘ * V s <A *'..«' yr 

^ r 0 ^ ^°o A* ‘° 4 /% ^ r 0 * * 

". *A •@ff>- ny : 

. , - .^teLW • o v<3^»y^ *>-~ 

■'• y ° 4 . *••»’ y y *•■'• y a 


o 


& A V V 
* 

\P <p 


■%. A 

y y 


o . '<>.*'* A 


® ^ Vy. 

• y 


i • 


a 


•* ^ , 

* a 


c 


0 




L I • 


X 


'X 


v»' 


*0 


0 0 


' 4, 

* 0 ' A u $> • ' 1 

o * Y *> 

y -wa^ ** ** •* 


O 'o . 4 * 

A 

* O 

* 0 0 

* ^ A N 
o V 

* <0 v\ 

* y ^ 

0 f\ ^ ^ ^ 

• - 0 a° <*> • * 1 y 

c\ a *> v 


As A ► 

^p ♦ 

vP V 


* C^> V o 

^"V 'A c 

<y .o^ ' 

““% y c° ,.^* 4 . °o 

•. A 0 < ;^^*. - •* 


o *X . 

t : ; 

.* yy •: 


A 


1 1 • 


*u 


o V 


1 •< 


4 c> 

V -OA ■*& * 

* <** % * 


V' . vL^l% 


O H o r VJ yp. * * / 1 

A". 


0 0 


£ 


o M 0 


0 


0* IV » * 


O. 'o . A A 


a y * 

vP ^ * 

y-v - 

•V <* 

.O’ 

yk 0 y ♦ <y 0 ^ 
^ ^ c u y 

, + a 0 < 


■5> 


C vP 

■< . I 


< V** 

v * 


o • a 




o V 


0 v\ 1 

• 0 'rf. * 


0 .0 


Y • o 


° A^ 

0 


•- v>V ° 

** V 0 

O a0^ ^ '*• * 

H 0 ^ ^ 0 ^ • L ' * - ^6 

C ■» o 


t ^ o 


A °a. *. 

A o '. 




/ 1 


<5> 


O M 0 


V" v ** Vj'* 0 ^ 


V & ^ 


> - ^ ,„/ /y _ > ^ 

. ^ . V % y * ^ 


o ^ 

%*-°~*°° a0 

'* .o v 















vv 





♦ o 4 / o$ \n * a. v 

_,..•* -or ^ • ^ < S> V 4 ^ ^ 

. - .. ** jy o, *®. * * a 

^ .0^ t • 1 ' * ♦ ^o ^ o 0 " 0 ♦ 

* V C * a?//???? * ° J ^ * 


O' 


0 M 0 



O v 


, s>° ^ 

, n 0 ., 
® “ ° A* <P\ * ' ■» 

A * A y * o y/ ’ v 




> 


^ A^ 


A c i* « 

4, J? c- V 

, a ..... % "’ v^Vv-.V 

w 0$v, - 

A V *b> * WWW ** A Vv ^ J ° A^A 

* •#- Alfsv A ■% v^Pv <? A 0*SP,* > s •* 

<V '••*' A V5, '. ..* A <> A 

°"“* ^ ,0^ A .«!A*.A ,0* .-“•- 

A "' v * .iv./V 

<t- .m'. >„ a .VWV- a .V5fl&v. V a 





/• ^>o y // a &^ * * v a. j ^ j.'jPSfj^'y o . ^Vi 

p ^ akOCa * ^ «?> 'V 

r£* • ^ 2^ « 7 V 1 * <LA r£* _ _ 

. A A <v ♦; 7. s • 0 V o 'o. x * A 

t. . „ ^ 0 A % 6 o - » „ <0 rA . ^' • * A X 0 0 « « 

1 /v^o_ -. o * _r^?v ^ (A ^^>JY?7^. * O <A • 



.• *° A 

, r,° * 

® - 0 <0 A> 

,0 A * °- , 

b A^ *VW 5 A> ^ a^ * 




A A 

V A 

* 

0 H 0 r ■& _ 0> 

DOBBS BROS. C <- 4 

LIBRANy BINOINQ 


MA y ‘ • 76 s 

STAUGUSTINE ^ ’ o 0 

^ 9 t ■ " O N 0 4 V 


^j^ FLA * A <0 l ^ 7^ V , 






